Monday, 21 September 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate of the death on 18 September 1987 of Mr William Paul O'Connor, a former member of the House of Representatives for the divisions of West Sydney from 1946 to 1949, Martin from 1949 to 1955 and Dalley from 1955 to 1969. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: that we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card. that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; that we are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's inability to provide effective and efficient methods to combat tax and social security fraud without resorting to expensive, ineffective and authoritarian measures which are alien to the Australian way of life; that we call upon the Labor Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Bishop (from 778 citizens), Reid (from 50 citizens), MacGibbon (from 49 citizens) and Watson (from 29 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 Oct 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term `extraordinary circumstances of the economy' given as the reason for the discounting. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 Oct 1986 to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 Oct 1986 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Alston (from 17 citizens), Boswell (from 15 citizens) and Short (from 43 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned, (i) are greatly disturbed by the dangers to health posed by passive smoking, and evidence of which is being documented daily by medical authorities around the world; (ii) note that environmental tobacco smoke has been identified as the major pollutant in aeroplane cabins, and that its direct threat to health is recognised in the special leave provisions for flight attendants specifically on grounds of upper respiratory infections; (iii) appreciate the government's undertaking to legislate for smoke-free travel on aeroplanes, but are dismayed at the apparent reluctance to follow up the Minister for Aviation's December announcement with action; and (iv) call upon the government to make smoke-free aeroplane travel a reality without further delay, and to ensure that smoke-free areas which cannot be contaminated by recycled pollutants, are available at all aerodromes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Childs (from 52 citizens) and Reid (from 500 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Moreton Island is an invaluable natural resource for Queensland and the world and that mining on Moreton would gravely compromise its unique flora and fauna and its outstanding recreational archaeological and scientific values. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: urge the government to use its proven constitutional powers to halt sand mining on Moreton by supporting the Moreton Island Preservation Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 201 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: millions of dollars of taxpayers money is spent at each Federal election in Australia in the drafting, production and distribution of How-to-Vote cards which are unnecessary and pollutant and that this waste is not desirable or essential in assisting the electorate to vote informatively for their parliamentarians. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: urge the Government to introduce legislation which requires that the registered How-to-Vote cards of all political parties and candidates for political office must be placed under glass in every polling booth within obvious sight of all voters, thus making it unnecessary for How-to-Vote cards to be distributed at future federal elections. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 49 citizens). To the President and Senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray by Senators Alston (from 20 citizens), Archer (from 122 citizens), Michael Baume (from 973 citizens) and Childs (from nine citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians. 2. Therefore your petitioners request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is re-submitted to Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 170 citizens). To the President and Senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Hamer (from 28 citizens). To the President and Senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Identity Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Identity Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators MacGibbon (from 531 citizens) Macklin (from 13 citizens), Puplick (from 726 citizens) and Reid (from 40 citizens). To the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians. 2. Therefore your petitioners request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Short (from 12 citizens). To the President and Senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Stone (from 31 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Australia Card (2) That this national identity system will be intrusive, will not appreciably combat tax or social security fraud, is authoritarian and alien to the Australian way of life. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Urge the Government to institute a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Walters (from 250 citizens) and Watson (from 269 citizens). To the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians. 2. The following citizens of Australia express their concerns at the potential violation of civil rights and democratic freedom posed by such a national identification system and urge that the Government not proceed with its planned introduction of the Australia Card. 3. Or that a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill be held before the proposal is re-submitted to Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 40 citizens). To the President and Senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 126 citizens). We, the undersigned, would like to voice our protest at the proposed legislation for the Australia Card. This petition of Australian citizens shows: 1. We reject in principle the need for a national I.D. card on the basis that it will be a gross violation of civil liberties and personal freedoms. 2. We support proper measures by government to stamp out tax avoidance. We equally believe that the introduction of a national system of identification and sensitive data storage, is a massive intrusion into the privacy of those least likely to be involved in tax avoidance practices, and equally less likely to be effective against those who are. 3. We reject the notion that the government, on the basis of it's recent re-election, can claim a mandate for the proposed legislation. The Australia Card was not a debated pre-election policy issue and we categorically state that it does not reflect our will. We therefore request that you vote to reject this legislation. by Senator Bolkus (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That we are totally opposed to the introduction of a compulsory national identification system under the control of the Federal Government. 2. That we reject the identity card proposal because it will involve massive expenditure of taxpayers funds while being ineffective in combating the problems of tax evasion, illegal immigration and abuse of the social security system. 3. That we are deeply concerned at the invasion of each Australian's privacy and the loss of their freedom that would occur if the identity card was introduced. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate should: Reject the identity card or allow for a national referendum so the Australian people can decide themselves whether they want the costly ineffective and intrusive un-Australian identity system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: that we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Government's Identity Card; that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; that we call upon the Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 71 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully request that the Australia Card Legislation be rejected because the proposed system: (1) has been demonstrated to have no capacity to stop tax evasion, Social Security fraud, illegal immigration or to recoup the revenue lost through abuse of these systems as was claimed. (2) will impose a large financial impact on Australian citizens, and has been demonstrated by the Parliament's own Joint Committee to be not cost effective. (3) has been shown to have the capacity to actually aid and abet both illegal immigration and organised crime. (4) is designed to cause a great intrusion and disruption to the normal day to day activities of all citizens. (5) does not contain the very necessary barriers to invasion of privacy, and loss of personal liberties. (6) will in both the words of the Government and the HIC be enlarged to encompass far greater uses, and the compilation of much more information on the data base. And your petitioners humbly pray that in the light of the obvious and proven inability of the proposed Australia Card to achieve its stated objectives that the Government explain the reason why it is persisting in reintroducing this legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator MacGibbon (from 1,566 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: the Hawke Labor Government's Australia Card proposal is the most far-reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever and on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: reject the Labor Government's Australia Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 33 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth opposition to the introduction of any form of national identification system especially a system known as Australia Card. Your petitioners request that the Senate in Parliament assembled should oppose any legislation designed to impose such a system on the people of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 249 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the proposed introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card. (2) That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive and authoritarian, and alien to the Australian way of life. (3) That we are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's resorting to such a far-reaching and expensive measure to deal with the problems of tax evasion and social security fraud. We call upon the Government to improve management systems within the Australian Taxation Office and appropriate departments to tackle these issues. Your petitioners urge those members present to reject the Identification Card proposal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever humbly pray. by Senator Walters (from 251 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: that we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Government's Identity Card; that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; that we call upon the Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: We consider the Federal Government's decision to have Telecom charge for the cost of ``Directory Assistance'' enquiries will greatly disadvantage the sick, elderly and the handicapped. Specifically, it will impose an unjustified financial burden on those with sight impediments and reading difficulties, such as the elderly. It will also disadvantage physically handicapped people and persons confined due to illness. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should urge the Government to: Reverse its decision to have Telecom charge for ``Directory Assistance'' enquiries. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from seven citizens). Petitions received. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) congratulates the United States and the Soviet Union on their historic agreement to eliminate short range and intermediate range land-based nuclear missiles and trusts that further negotiations will be successful and achieve mutual balanced and verifiable reductions in strategic nuclear weapons of the order of 50 per cent in the immediate future; and (b) notes that this historic reduction is a positive outcome of the policy of deterrence practised by the Western democracies whereby some parity was maintained between the nuclear arsenals of the West and Soviets, thereby allowing mutual and balanced force reductions to take place safely. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with optimism the pending arms agreement on intermediate and short range missiles in Europe, which should be seen as a first step in the right direction; (b) commends the governments of the United States and the Soviet Union for reaching a disarmament agreement as opposed to an arms control agreement, and the millions of ordinary people around the world who have worked so long to bring pressure on the nuclear powers for such an agreement; (c) notes, too, that the number of long-range weapons deployed by the United States and the Soviet Union since the Reagan Administration came to office exceeds the number of medium-range weapons that would be eliminated, and that this agreement only covers about 6 per cent of the world's nuclear arsenals; and (d) urges the Australian government to initiate arms control, security and disarmament talks in the North Pacific involving both the nuclear super-powers and other regional powers, as well as continuing its efforts to achieve a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I withdraw Government Business notices of motion 1 to 4 standing in my name relating to the committee system. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: 1. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO STANDING ORDERS That the following amendments be made to the Standing Orders: (a) Standing Order 33: Leave out ``Standing Orders'', insert ``Procedure''. (b) Standing Order 36a: Leave out paragraph (2), insert the following new paragraph: ``(2) (a) Unless otherwise ordered, the Committee shall consist of six Senators, three being members of the Government to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and three being Senators who are not members of the Government, to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or Independent Senator or Independent Senators. (b) The nomination of the Opposition or any minority group or groups or Independent Senator or Independent Senators shall be determined by agreement between the Opposition and any minority group or groups or Independent Senator or Independent Senators, and, in the absence of agreement duly notified to the President, the question as to the representation on the Committee shall be determined by the Senate.''. Paragraph (3): Leave out ``four'', insert ``3''. After paragraphs (3), insert the following new paragraphs: ``(3a) The Committee shall elect a Government member as Chairman. ``(3b) The Chairman may from time to time appoint a member of the Committee to be Deputy-Chairman and the member so appointed shall act as Chairman of the Committee at any time there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee. ``(3c) In the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, shall have a casting vote.''. (c) Standing Order 36aa: Leave out paragraph (1), insert the following new paragraphs: ``(1) At the commencement of each Parliament, Standing Committees shall be appointed, and each committee shall have power to confer or sit as a joint committee with a similar committee of the House of Representatives. ``(1a) Unless otherwise ordered, the Standing Committee shall be as follows: (a) The Standing Committee on Community Affairs; (b) The Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training; (c) The Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts; (d) The Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration; (e) The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; (f) The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology; (g) The Standing Committee on Infrastructure; and (h) The Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.''. (d) Committee of Disputed Returns and Qualifications: Delete Standing Order 38. Consequential Amendments (i) to Standing Order 96 Leave out ``IV. (in the case of a Petition against a return) `That the Petition be referred at once to the Committee of Disputed Returns and Qualifications;' or V.'', insert ``or IV.''. (ii) to Standing Order 327 Leave out ``, and shall forthwith refer the same to the Committee of Disputed Returns and Qualifications''. (e) Sittings of Committees during sittings of Senate: After Standing Order 300, insert the following new Standing Order: ``300a. All Committees of the Senate and Joint Committees of both Houses of the Parliament may sit during the sittings of the Senate for the purpose of deliberating in private session, but shall not otherwise sit during the sittings of the Senate unless by special order of the Senate.''. Consequential Amendments (i) paragraph 36aa (19), leave out the paragraph; (ii) paragraph 36aaa (13), leave out the paragraph; (iii) delete Standing Order 39; (iv) Standing Order 300, leave out ``; but no Select Committee may sit during the sittings of the Senate''; and (v) Standing Order 301, leave out ``All Committees'', insert ``Committees sitting contrary to Standing Order 300a.''. 2. STANDING COMMITTEES (CONTINGENT ON THE SENATE AGREEING TO AMENDMENTS TO STANDING ORDER 36AA)- (1) That, in accordance with Standing Order 36aa, the following Standing Committees be appointed: (a) Community Affairs; (b) Employment, Education and Training; (c) Environment, Recreation and the Arts; (d) Finance and Public Administration; (e) Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; (f) Industry, Science and Technology; (g) Infrastructure; and (h) Legal and Constitutional Affairs. (2) That, unless otherwise ordered and notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the following matters, referred to Legislative and General Purpose Committees on the days indicated during previous Sessions and not disposed of by those Committees, be referred under the same terms to the Standing Committees indicated: Matter Standing Committee Retirement income systems (6 September 1983) Community Affairs The education of gifted and talented children (17 October 1985) Employment, Education and Training The potential of the Kakadu National Park region (9 October 1985) Environment, Recreation and the Arts Capacity of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau and Australia's effectiveness in relation to the assessment of environmental impact of proposed projects (19 February 1987) Environment, Recreation and the Arts Statutory Authorities-The continuing oversight of the establishment, operation, administration and accountability of bodies established pursuant to Commonwealth statute (6 October 1977, as amended 8 October 1986) The proposed sale of the Australian Dairy Corporation shareholding in P.T. Australian Indonesian Milk Inc. (P.T. Indomilk) Finance and Public Administration Non-Statutory bodies-The continuing oversight of the establishment, operation, administration and accountability of bodies for which the Commonwealth is wholly or partly responsible, being bodies which are not departments (or parts of departments) nor statutory authorities (or sub-bodies of statutory authorities) nor incorporated companies nor incorporated associations (17 November 1983, as amended 8 October 1986) Finance and Public Administration Companies and associations-The continuing oversight of the establishment, operation, administration and accountability of incorporated companies and incorporated associations owned by the Commonwealth and of those in which the Commonwealth holds a major or substantial interest (8 October 1986) Finance and Public Administration Australia's relations with Papua New Guinea (3 May 1984) Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade The Australian Army's rapid deployment capability (26 March 1985) Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (26 March 1985) Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Acquisition of land for the purposes of the relocation and co-location of the Australian Army's School of Infantry and Infantry Centre, Artillery Training and for Army manoeuvres (9 October 1985) Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade The adequacy of current contingency planning by Federal and State authorities to deal with the accidental release of ionizing radiation from visiting nuclear powered or armed vessels in Australian waters and ports (17 September 1986) Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Certain Aspects of Australia's Manufacturing Industry Revitalisation (13 June 1986) Industry, Science and Technology Continuing oversight of the implementation of reports of the Law Reform Commission (24 September 1981) Legal and Constitutional Affairs The operation and administration of the Freedom of Information legislation (29 November 1985) Legal and Constitutional Affairs Continuing oversight of the Commonwealth Ombudsman Special Reports (22 August 1986) Legal and Constitutional Affairs The nature, function, ambit and adequacy of income tax rulings issued by the Commissioner of Taxation and the process by which these rulings are formulated and disseminated (27 May 1987) Legal and Constitutional Affairs (3) That- (a) the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Community Affairs: The comparison between private hospitals conducted for profit, non-profit private hospitals and public hospitals in respect of the type and frequency of services provided and waiting lists for these services, with particular reference to discretionary services; (b) for the purpose of its inquiry and report the Committee have power to consider the minutes of evidence and records of the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes constituted in previous Parliaments; and (c) the foregoing paragraphs, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. 3. ESTIMATES COMMITTEES-APPOINTMENT That, in accordance in Standing Order 36ab, 6 Estimates Committees be appointed, to be known as Estimates Committees A, B, C, D, E and F; and that, unless otherwise ordered, the Committees consider the Proposed Expenditure in relation to Departments as follows: Estimates Committee A Parliament Industry, Technology and Commerce Prime Minister and Cabinet Industrial Relations Estimates Committee B Transport and Communications Foreign Affairs and Trade Estimates Committee C Finance Treasury Primary Industries and Energy Estimates Committee D Employment, Education and Training Community Services and Health Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs Veterans' Affairs Estimates Committee E Attorney-General Aboriginal Affairs Defence Administrative Services Estimates Committee F Social Security The Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories 4. ESTIMATES COMMITTEES-PROPOSED REFERENCES (Contingent upon the establishment of Senate Estimates Committees)- (1) That the Particulars of Proposed Expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1988 in relation to the Parliamentary Departments, the Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the year ending on 30 June 1988 and the Particulars of Certain Proposed Expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1988 be referred forthwith to Estimates Committees for examination and report. (2) That expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year ended 1987 be referred to Estimates Committees for examination and report prior to its consideration in Committee of the Whole. (3) That the Committees consider Proposed Expenditure and departmental expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance in the Estimates Committee groupings agreed to by Resolution of the Senate. (4) That the Committees report to the Senate on or before Thursday, 5 November 1987. 5. SELECT COMMITTEE ON ANIMAL WELFARE-RE-APPOINTMENT (1) That the Committee known as the Select Committee on Animal Welfare, constituted by Resolutions of the Senate on 16 and 17 November 1983, be re-constituted, unless otherwise herein provided, under the same terms and with the same functions and powers. (2) That the Committee have power to consider and use for its purposes the Minutes of Evidence and records of the Select Committees on Animal Welfare appointed in previous Parliaments. (3) That paragraphs (1) and (6) of the membership and powers of the Committee, contained in the Resolution of the Senate of 17 November 1983, be varied to read as follows: ``(1) The Committee shall consist of 6 Senators as follows: (a) 3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate; (b) 2 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; and (c) 1 to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats. ``(6) That the quorum of the Committee shall be 3.''. (4) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding any thing contained in the Standing Orders. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State in her capacity as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women and as Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health. I refer the Minister to the comments of her colleague Senator Walsh to the Labor lawyers in Perth yesterday. When speaking of the best way to provide child care services he said: The sort of money that's going to be required to make this service, at its present cost even, universal, will not be available. I interpolate that the estimate of a total service at the time when I was Minister-which is a long time ago now-was $4 billion capital and $4 billion a year recurrent. So I respectfully agree with the statement of the Minister for Finance. He went on to say: The money could be found through a means-tested voucher system which would then of course, remove child care from the public sector and send it back to the private sector from whence, I believe, it should never have been enticed away. Does the Minister, and does the Government, agree with Senator Walsh about changing child care funding in the way that he has described? Senator RYAN —I remind Senator Chaney that our Government has an outstanding record in providing additional child care places through subsidised, needs based community child care centres. In 1984 we undertook to provide an additional 20,000 child care places, a commitment that we will meet next year. Next year, for example, we will be funding 106,000 places, compared with just 46,000 places when we came to office, and our commitment is being honoured in the most cost effective and equitable manner. Indeed, recent changes in the mix of child care places, with greater emphasis on family day care, and in the arrangements for providing fee relief, have both been intended to improve cost efficiency and equity. As the Prime Minister spelt out in the election campaign, Labor will continue to support adequate provision of child care facilities. There are private operators in the child care area. They do not operate on a needs basis. They are not therefore suitable to be a part of our program of providing child care on the basis of needs. I should add: the Government has no voucher system or similar proposal under consideration in the child care area. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. The Minister seems to have given us a prepared answer rather than addressing her mind to the point which I raised. I asked the Minister: does she agree with the central proposition of Senator Walsh that a minority of needy parents and children receive any assistance at all in the present limited system? Is the Government prepared to consider more effective ways of directing assistance to the genuinely needy in this community rather than simply persisting with the present arrangements? Senator RYAN —Senator Chaney's supplementary question contained a contradiction. He suggested that our mode of assisting parents who use child care is not needs based. It is needs based. We are constantly monitoring the program to ensure that new services are targeted to areas of need and that the subsidy arrangement, which is on a sliding scale, as Senator Chaney will be aware, does provide the most assistance to parents in need. The statistics which I gave the first time I answered Senator Chaney's question demonstrate that there has been a massive increase in the number of services available and the number of places available. The vast majority of those services and places serve low income parents. Where parents who are on middle or higher incomes have access to places they pay a much higher cost, of course; they receive very little subsidy at all. They pay almost the full cost of the child care place. So, by a combination of where the new services are put, the formula for charging the parents who use the services and the generous subsidies available to low income parents, we are expanding the number of child care places according to principles of need and efficiency. Senator AULICH —Is the Minister for the Environment and the Arts aware of a recent advertisement in a Queensland regional newspaper promoting a public meeting against the proposed World Heritage listing of north Queensland rainforests? Is the Minister also aware that the meeting is to be addressed by a Mr Charles Pinwell, who is described in the advertisement as an associate of Mr Jeremy Lee of the Australian League of Rights? Does the League of Rights have any acknowledged expertise on the preservation of tropical rainforests or the economics of the logging industry? I ask the Minister: If not, why has the League of Rights called this meeting? Senator RICHARDSON —I thank Senator Aulich for his question. I am not aware that the League of Rights has any special expertise in the preservation of our rainforests and the wet tropics. I am aware that its main role has been to ferment radical hatred in this country over a number of years. It has a history of anti-semitism unrivalled in Australia by any other group. Recently it has been raising antagonism towards Asians and Aboriginals. It now appears that anyone who wants to protect the rainforests will also appear on its list. The League does not merely prejudice against those races; it actively seeks to promote enmity against them. It operates under many different guises. It bobs up in many different places. It has covered such diverse issues recently as apartheid in South Africa and the fluoridation of drinking water. It has recently opposed Asian immigration. What the League of Rights has to offer the townspeople in Ravenshoe, Ingham or any of those places affected by World Heritage listing I do not know. I do know, however, that the League does not have the interests of those people at heart. In fact, it does not have the interests of anyone at heart, bar those who share its members' bitterness and hatred towards anything that does not look, sound or act like them. Fortunately, more and more people in Australia do not sound, look, or act like them. More and more they are seen as being on the fringe. I think everyone in the Parliament would like to see them stay there. We have had enough people stirring up trouble in those areas in recent times. We have already had incidents we would all like to forget. It is in everyone's interests that the League of Rights stays out of Ravenshoe and north Queensland, and it should do us a big favour-stay out of everything. Senator BROWNHILL —I address my question to the Special Minister of State and Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. Do the Minister and the Government share the view of the Minister for Finance expressed in his reported remarks to Labor lawyers in Perth that `middle class trendies' are the main recipients of tertiary education and that this provides a good argument for the reintroduction of tertiary fees? Senator RYAN —My good friend and colleague Senator Walsh was certainly enjoying himself on Saturday, off the leash. However, regardless of any reports in the newspapers, I would like to assure the Senate that Government policy recognises the general prohibition against tertiary fees as set out in the Australian Labor Party platform. There are no plans to change that platform. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the results of the July Federal election. The Minister will be aware that four House of Representatives seats in Queensland were won by Labor from the conservative parties and that Labor now holds a majority of Federal electoral divisions in that State. What economic factors and Government policies contributed to the electoral landslide to Labor in Queensland? Senator Chaney —I take a point of order, Mr President. There is a little used standing order which suggests that questions shall not ask for an opinion. I suggest that no question could more flagrantly breach that standing order than the question that has just been asked. Any election result can be attributed to any combination of factors. This is reducing Question Time to a farce. The PRESIDENT —I will allow the question but I ask the Minister, in answering the question, to deal with only those areas that are directly related to his portfolio. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. The results of the election in Queensland were a stinging rebuff to the Bjelke-Petersen machine, and I think equally there can be no doubt that a major factor in that stinging rebuff, in the swings against the National Party of Australia of 2.8 per cent in the electorate of Fisher, 2 per cent in Petrie and 1.3 per cent in Hinkler-two of those seats having been lost by the National Party-and in the 2.9 per cent Statewide fall in its primary vote was the electorate's rejection of the economic policies put forward by the Queensland branch of the National Party. The optimistic interpretation of that result is that the electorate will not tolerate fiscal irresponsibility and that no party can any longer make promises of enormous tax cuts unless it spells out in detail a credible package of expenditure cuts to pay for them. That was precisely what the National Party in Queensland did not do. Senator Stone might tell me that in fact the expenditure cuts were spelt out. For the first year they were spelt out in some detail, but in a way that would still have left a Budget deficit of more than $1 billion after the same level of assets sales that the Government had in mind and after the additional revenue which is now expected from the tax base broadening measures had been counted-additional revenue which of course both conservative parties were pledged to renouncing because they were going to repeal the legislation which gave rise to the revenue. The final point I make is that there needs to be a correction of over $2 billion between the Budget deficit which this Government finally brought down and that which would have been brought down by the National Party in Queensland had its policy been accepted. Beyond that its expenditure cuts covered the first year only. The entire National Party tax program, after the full effect of the company tax reduction was taken into account, on its own figures was in excess of $20 billion, to which, as I said earlier, needs to be added the additional revenue loss from the tax base broadening measures which the National Party was pledged to repealing. So, of a total of well over $21 billion, the National Party spelt out $4.6 billion of more or less specific taxation cuts. Although the electorate might not have been aware of all of those details-indeed it could not have been aware of them at the time-I think the lesson is pretty clear that the electorate knew it was a shonky package which would not be delivered. Senator JENKINS —Will the Minister for Finance comment on an article in the Weekend Australian of 19-20 September by Rod Reader which states that many Japanese property buyers are failing to report their purchases to the Foreign Investment Review Board and further that many sales are being organised through Japanese shelf companies to circumvent the FIRB ruling that purchases of over $600,000 must be reported? Is there an Australian register of foreign ownership? If so, can the Minister indicate the extent of Japanese ownership of property and holdings in Australia? If not, does the Government intend to establish such a register? Senator WALSH —I did not see that article in the Weekend Australian and I do not have any information about the matter either, so I will refer that part of the question to the Treasurer. Regarding the second part of the question, to the best of my knowledge there is no Australian register of foreign ownership as such, but some aggregated information is made available to the public each year through the Foreign Investment Review Board's annual report. There is also some level of property purchase-I am not sure what it is for a residential building-below which there is no requirement to notify the Foreign Investment Review Board. As to whether the Government intends to establish such a register, I will refer that to the Treasurer. However, I think it is something that it would be very difficult for the Federal Government to do without the co-operation of the State governments, which, of course, have the records of land titles. Senator WOOD —I ask the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade a question concerning two recent referenda in Palau that sought to amend Palau's nuclear free provisions in its Constitution. Is it not true that, although the United Nations observers were present, United Nations criteria were not followed? Given that on 15 September in another place the Australian Foreign Minister criticised France's conduct of its referendum in New Caledonia, is the Australian Government being inconsistent in failing to criticise the referenda in Palau? Are we treating American designs in Palau more favourably than French designs in New Caledonia? Senator GARETH EVANS —As to the first part of Senator Wood's question, there are no formal United Nations criteria for decolonising acts of self-determination, although there are principles ascertainable from past practice which, for example, the Forum countries have sought to identify in the context of New Caledonia. One centrally important United Nations practice is the attendance of United Nations observer missions. There was no such observer mission for the recent referendum in New Caledonia as the French Government had specifically ruled that out. However, there was, as Senator Wood acknowledged in his question, a United Nations observer mission in attendance in Palau for the 21 August referendum. As to the nature of that exercise, the Australian Government considers that the compact of free association between Palau and the United States has been negotiated and approved in a manner consistent with the rights of the Palau people to self-determination. It follows, therefore, that the answer to the last two of Senator Wood's questions is clearly no. It is clear that in Palau and New Caledonia the United States and France are pursuing quite different courses and objectives and the two situations are simply not comparable. Senator WOOD —I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister: as this tormented island is part of a United Nations strategic trust territory, should the Australian Government seek exposure of this issue in the Security Council? Senator GARETH EVANS —For the reasons that I have just indicated, no. Senator ALSTON —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Lest we forget the importance of last weekend's Labor lawyers conference, I refer to the Minister's widely reported comments that the Government lacks the political courage to bite into around 200 indulgent social welfare programs. In view of the Minister's assertion on AM this morning that the reference to the PAW-Peter Alexander Walsh-top 200 list arose out of comments made at the 1986 Australian Labor Party National Conference and that since that time the Government has cut more than $3 billion from recurrent expenditure, does the Minister suggest that the top 200 list, or even the 13 engines of growth identified in his August speech, are now inoperative? If not, will the Minister in due course table a costed and itemised list of the various middle class welfare rorts and ramps which this Government lacks the political courage to eliminate? Senator WALSH —I must agree with John Howard about one thing. He is reported as saying at the weekend conference of the Western Australian Liberal Party that the Liberal Party is slow to learn. He is dead right about that because the first question put to me in the Senate was based on the 200 programs, which, incidentally, I acknowledge was reported accurately by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation this morning as a retelling of an anecdote from the 1986 Federal Conference, and has already been blown out of the water. Also I understand that the Liberal Party is raising a matter of public importance in the House of Representatives on that same matter. Since that comment was made in 1986 we have had two Budgets from which we have cut more than $3 billion in recurrent expenditure, plus asset sales, plus an extra $1 billion from the States, and collected about an extra $2 billion in revenue from the base-broadening taxation measures which were part of the Government's tax reform package and which the Opposition was, and I presume still is, committed to repealing. In other words, if none of those adjustments had been made and other things had remained equal, we would be looking at a Budget deficit this year of over $7 billion. We have made the cuts in the Budget, we have made the adjustments-more than $3 billion in recurrent programs-plus a billion from the States, plus a billion in assets sales. That has been done. Our cutting record is on the table. Virtually all of it has been there for the last three months. Where is the Opposition's $2.5 billion of unspecified expenditures cuts? It is as big a mystery now as it was in June. Before that snivelling wimp who leads the Opposition has the audacity to criticise somebody else- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walsh, will you withdraw? Senator WALSH —I withdraw. Do you mean `snivelling', `wimp' or both? Senator Chaney —On a point of order, Mr President, I suggest that if the Minister is contemptuous in his withdrawal, you should call him to order and he should be made to withdraw properly. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister to withdraw those offensive words. Senator WALSH —I withdraw. All of our expenditure cuts-if one counts assets sales-the whole $5.5 billion or thereabouts, are on the table. We are still waiting to hear about the $2.5 billion which the Opposition talked about during the election campaign and has failed to specify. I would also remind Senator Alston of what I said in the Senate last week, and it is this. Important though the Budget outcome is-and for the record let it be noted that this Government has produced a balanced Budget in one year; Mr Howard said that he would produce a balanced Budget in three years, that is, if one believes the $2.5 billion-worth of nebulous expenditure cuts and the $1,800m-worth of phantom revenue from incentivation-if one believes that Mr Howard was to deliver a balanced Budget in three years, we have done it in one. As I said last week, important though the Budget outcome is, there are other factors which are arguably more important. Indeed the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and a number of other Ministers, including Senator Button, have said similar things at various times. There are other factors which are very important, foremost among which is that there needs to be further significant attitudinal and behavioural changes in the Australian economy and throughout Australian society. The greatest threat to those attitudinal and behavioural changes being recognised is opportunists like Mr Howard, who go out, as he did during the election campaign, and say, `I will deliver an economic nirvana via tax cuts. There is no need to make these behavioural and attitudinal adjustments. I can lift your living standards by giving you massive tax cuts'-cuts which the country cannot afford. The people did not believe it and that is a good tribute to their judgment; they did not believe it and nor should they have believed it. Senator ALSTON —I ask the Minister a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his hectoring non-answer but my question was directed to ascertaining whether the 13 welfare areas which Senator Walsh a mere six weeks ago described as items which were likely to get very much out of hand unless contained are now inoperative, and whether he seriously claims that in view of the balancing trick in the recent Budget we are to take it that the whole of the 200 welfare items that he proudly boasted about have now all been achieved? Senator WALSH —The 200 items, which by their nature are very rounded, was not a precise figure and was not intended to be taken as such, nor at any time was it restricted to welfare expenditures. That shows something about the mentality of that lot over there. Any suggestion of cutting government expenditure sets them twitching and jerking. They say, `We cannot take it out of anywhere else, it must come out of the welfare sector'. Senator Alston betrays his own prejudices by inserting a word which in fact was not there. Welfare programs were not specified either in the list of 13 programs which I put out six weeks ago or thereabouts or in some much less precise list to which I referred anecdotally at a later time. The argument is not restricted to welfare payments. However, that is the way in which the mind of the Liberal Party works. If government expenditure has to be cut its first preference is to take money away from the people who can afford it least. That is the way the Liberal Party's mind works, that is the way its philosophy operates. If Senator Alston cared to read my speech-some of his colleagues are avid readers of my speeches but he apparently is not; I assume that someone else just wrote out that question and gave it to him-he would note that the 13 programs which I identified about six weeks ago were selected by the criteria of being programs on which a considerable amount of money is spent and in which there is a significant growth rate. I explicitly said that this does not mean that any or all of those programs necessarily have to be cut or their growth rate restrained. But it does mean, if neither of those things is to happen, that great care must be exercised in other areas of government expenditure; that is, of course-I did not say this in my speech, but I thought it would have been clear to most people who take a serious interest in these matters-unless the Government is willing to let recklessly the Budget deficit blow out, as John Howard did in his last Budget, or alternatively, which is even worse, to promise massive tax cuts which the country cannot afford, as John Howard did in the last election campaign. Senator BEAHAN —My question is to the Minister for Transport and Communications. What is the Government's reaction to the allegations made by Mr Amann yesterday about the coastwatch contract and in particular to his assertion, reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, that Sir Peter Abeles had sought to influence the Government's decision? Senator GARETH EVANS —As to the specific reference to Sir Peter Abeles, the situation is this: Sir Peter Abeles did not contact me or anyone else in the Government to say, as was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, that `unless the Amann contract was cancelled he would withdraw from a number of Federal government projects'. More generally, there is no truth or substance whatever in any suggestion that might be made that Sir Peter Abeles or anyone acting on his behalf exerted pressure of any kind on the Government to cancel the Amann Aviation Pty Ltd contract. The allegation was described in the Sydney Morning Herald as `extraordinary'. Certainly it does no credit to Mr Amann or his company. As to the other allegations that have been made by Mr Amann about the involvement of Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd and, indeed, the allegations that have been made in recent weeks and months by Skywest about Mr Amann and his company, the Government regards all the various allegations that have been made about each other's conduct by Amann and Skywest over the last little while as being essentially matters for the parties themselves to resolve by civil litigation if they so choose. Any information or allegation that either party might wish to lay before or make to the relevant law enforcement authorities will, of course, be dealt with by such authorities in the ordinary way. Senator MESSNER —I refer the Minister for Transport and Communications to the general matter of the Amann Aviation Pty Ltd contract. I refer him to a particular media report over the weekend that the Department of Aviation had warned the Government only 11 days after the coastwatch contract was awarded to Amann Aviation that this company was out of its depth. Are those media reports correct? Senator GARETH EVANS —That is an heroic feat of research on Senator Messner's part. Mr Roger Beale, in his report to me on what may or may not have gone wrong in the original administrative process, specifically referred to that very report from an aviation officer which was made a few days after the contract was awarded. I incorporated the full text of Mr Beale's report in Hansard last week. If Senator Messner has not got his act together sufficiently to appreciate that, manifestly he is not doing his job. There was a report. There was a minute signed by a senior aviation officer, who was the regional director in New South Wales. He sat down with Mr Amann and a number of others to work through all the details which were involved in the process of getting Australian registration and certification of airworthiness. That officer reached some conclusions about the great difficulty, as he perceived it, that Mr Amann, his chief pilot and his chief engineer were going to have. He reported as much to the Government. That report certainly created some continuing concern, but it was not concern that anyone could do anything about. The then Minister became aware at that time that there was that concern but, and I have said as much in my earlier comments on this matter-- Senator Hill —The incompetence was earlier rather than later. Senator GARETH EVANS —This was after the contract was awarded. It was several days-nearly two weeks-after the contract was awarded. The Minister became aware of that concern, but at that stage the contract had been awarded. There was no question of any contractual deadline not having been met. That question did not arise, as I have constantly said, until 12 September. Although the report certainly gave rise to some concern about the difficulties that would be experienced on the basis of the information at that stage-it certainly led the Government to realise that Mr Amann would have to find some aviation expertise fast if he was to meet his deadlines-there was nothing that the Government could do about it, except wait to see whether the particular contractual deadline was reached and to make various contingency plans, which we did, to ensure that there would be no breach of continuity in surveillance if the contract was not able to be met. That has been the situation-there has been no breach of continuity. Senator MESSNER —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. The Minister will recall that the other day, in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, Mr Duncan, mentioned the existence of a document which apparently made him aware of certain advice to the Government about the Amann contract. Is that the document about which we are talking? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Messner is in a profound and unhappy condition of confusion. Senator Ryan —It is permanent. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is permanent, as my colleague says. It has only just become evident to me how extensive is that condition of confusion. The document to which reference was made was the report of the Aviation regional director made a few days after the contract was awarded at the end of March. It related wholly and solely to questions of aviation expertise. The other documentation to which Mr Duncan was referring-he had not seen it and was not aware of the contract involved-was a later minute, which has also been tabled. I hope that, by now, Senator Messner has had an opportunity to read it, even though he has not yet had a briefing on it. The other document to which Mr Duncan was referring was the Australian Federal Police minute of 16 July, signed by Chief Superintendent Dixon, which makes it clear that, although there had been some investigation of security issues, the AFP felt that there were no security concerns. Senator Messner —There was no way you said that. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am sorry if Senator Messner is still in a state of confusion. He is waving his head around and jumping up and down there in the front row like Billy Bunter. The situation is perfectly clear and as I have described it. There is no ground for any further confusion. Senator VALLENTINE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Is it not a fact that the United States of America Government has given Australia the most solemn assurances that none of the so-called `joint' facilities are involved in any way with work being conducted under President Reagan's strategic defence initiative (SDI) or Star Wars program? How does the Minister square that solemn assurance with the fact that since 1971 the Nurrungar base has generated information on burn times, burn rates and spectral signatures of over 6,000 Soviet missile and satellite launches, that this information has been handed by the United States Government to its contractor firm, Aerojet General and that precisely this information is a necessary pre-condition-though not a sufficient one-for the successful development of strategic defence tracking and battle management systems under the Star Wars program? Does the Government now admit, in the light of this information, that the assurance given by Washington about Nurrungar has been broken? Senator ROBERT RAY —The answer to Senator Vallentine's question is that none of the joint facilities is involved in the SDI research project. The Australian and United States governments have a clear understanding on this point, and this understanding has been publicly affirmed by both governments on a number of occasions. The Government does not respond to speculation about the roles and the operations of the joint facilities. For the definitive position on these matters, I refer Senator Vallentine to the statement made by the Prime Minister on 6 June 1984 and to the Government's policy information paper on defence published earlier this year. However, I can assure Senator Vallentine that the understanding between the United States and Australian governments has not been broken. The joint facilities do not participate in SDI research. I will refer Senator Vallentine's complex supplementary question to the Minister for Defence when she asks it. Senator VALLENTINE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. If the Minister expects the denial to be based on the Prime Minister's statement of 6 June 1984, he must be joking. That told us nothing that had not been widely known in the community. It gave us no new information. I ask: On what specific and precise information, on what evidence, is this denial based? If the Minister cannot answer this question, why should the Australian people believe him without convincing evidence? Senator ROBERT RAY —I will refer that to the Minister for Defence for further response. Senator VANSTONE —My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. Does the Government believe that equal employment opportunity should apply to diplomatic posts? Is it correct to say that Australia has only two ambassadors, one high commissioner and one consul-general that are women? Is the Minister or the Government aware of any women with the apparently perfect qualifications for a diplomatic posting, namely, those of former Senators Grimes and McClelland, who would be willing to cap off an otherwise perhaps distinguished parliamentary career with a diplomatic posting? Has the Minister encouraged, or will she encourage, the Government to look for such a person to improve our record in this area? In the event of there being a limited supply of such women, will the Minister offer herself for such a posting as a means of increasing the status of women? Senator RYAN —Senator Vanstone is off to quite a good start in trying to come to terms with equal opportunity principles-something with which she is starting from scratch, or even from behind scratch, since she did not see fit to vote for legislation giving equal opportunity, to her eternal shame and to the chagrin of many women in the Liberal Party who were absolutely disgusted with her performance. Poor Senator Peter Baume, who did have the temerity to stand up for his principles, disappeared. He is nowhere to be seen. Perhaps when Senator Peter Baume returns, if he is allowed to return, to the Liberal ranks, he will give Senator Vanstone a few well-needed tutorials in equal opportunity principles. Leaving that aside for one moment, it seems that Senator Vanstone has done some-- Senator Reid —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Senator Peter Baume is absent from the chamber, having been given leave of this chamber to attend a parliamentary conference in Europe. He will be away for the minimum time necessary and then will return to take his place as a Liberal senator from New South Wales. It is quite wrong to suggest that he is absent for any other or frivolous reason. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. You have got your message across, Senator Reid. Senator RYAN —Senator Vanstone appears to have done some research on the number of women now holding top positions in overseas embassies, consulates and diplomatic missions. I am not sure whether her assessment is absolutely correct, but from memory I would say that all of those women who are currently holding posts of ambassador or consul-general have been appointed by our Government. When we came into government-Senator Gareth Evans might have some brief on this matter-from memory, there was not one woman head of mission. So we have undoubtedly-- Senator Vanstone —There was. Senator RYAN —Who? Who was there? Senator Alston —Ruth Dobson. Senator RYAN —I was thinking of Ambassador Dobson in Ireland, but I think honourable senators will find that she had in fact concluded her service in Ireland. In any event, Ruth Dobson was first appointed to ambassadorial rank by the Whitlam Government. Our Government has an outstanding record in the appointment of women to senior ambassadorial posts. It is a record far ahead of anything done by Liberal-National Party governments in their 23 years and then another seven years in office. I would be surprised if, in all of that time, they made more than two female ambassadorial appointments. I can think of only two. Senator Vanstone has already named seven current-- Senator Vanstone —No; three ambassadors and high commissioners and one consul-general. Senator RYAN —In four years we have appointed at least four; I think they were all appointed by us. Very clearly, it is part of the equal opportunity program of this Government to make such appointments when they are deserved on the basis of merit, which those four appointments certainly were. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Can the Minister give details of Budget initiatives in the Department of Veterans' Affairs which reflect the Hawke Government's commitment to the status of women? Senator REYNOLDS —I thank Senator Giles for her question. I am pleased to remind the chamber that the Treasurer announced in his Budget Speech that ex-servicewomen from World War II will receive treatment benefits. For some years the ex-service community has sought these benefits and in March 1984 the then Minister, Senator Gietzelt, commissioned a study on returned servicewomen from World War II. The study found that these women suffered discrimination and disadvantage both during and after service. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator REYNOLDS —I do not expect this to be of interest to honourable senators on the other side but I am sure that there are many ex-servicewomen listening to the broadcast of these proceedings who are, indeed, very interested and who cannot understand why members of the Opposition are not interested. Returned nurses from World War I were granted treatment benefits in 1958. Returned ex-servicewomen from World War II will be entitled to medical and hospital treatment from January 1988. Senator PARER —My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Will the Minister confirm that, in its haste for Budget purposes to maximise the profit of a round $200m from the Australian Mint's production of the $2 coin, and because of a shortage of copper in Australia, the Government purchased copper from Chile? In view of the Prime Minister's attack last week on the Government of Chile, in which he accused it of resorting to torture, intimidation and murder, is this not yet another example of the double standards of the Hawke Government which does not let its foreign policy outrage interfere with its other interests? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not appear to have a brief on this, Mr President, but I will ensure that I have an answer for the honourable senator as soon as possible. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Has his attention been drawn to an announcement made at 2 p.m. today by the Queensland Minister for Police, Mr Gunn, that the Commissioner of Police in that State, Sir Terence Lewis, has been asked to stand aside for the duration of the Queensland Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct, the Fitzgerald inquiry? Was Sir Terence in July appointed Chairman of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence? Was the former Deputy Commissioner, Mr Graeme Parker, who resigned last week and subsequently admitted that he was corrupt, liaison officer with the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence? In view of revelations arising daily from the Fitzgerald inquiry, has any investigation been launched by the Federal Government to ascertain whether the activities of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence have been compromised? Senator TATE —My attention has been drawn to media reports-I cannot confirm anything beyond those media reports-to the effect that the Queensland Police Minister, Mr Gunn, has asked his Commissioner, Sir Terence Lewis, to stand aside. Whether that was a direction or a request that has been acceded to, I am unable to say. It is a fact that Sir Terence is currently the Chairman of the board of management of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, which, as the name suggests, is the supervising body for the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. He is Chairman by way of rotation among the police commissioners who as a body constitute that board of management. Senator Jones asked about Mr Parker, the former Assistant Commissioner in Queensland. It is a fact that Mr Parker was the liaison officer for the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence appointed by the Commissioner for Queensland liaison work. As I have already indicated to the chamber, it was a similar capacity to that which he held in relation to the National Crime Authority, and that was the subject of an answer I gave last week. I had some discussions with Mr Chalker, the Director of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, on Friday morning in my office, when the Director attended at his own initiative, not by way of direction by me. Of course, honourable senators will understand that it is the board of management which is in control of the operations of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence and not me. Nevertheless, at that briefing I was able to get some indication from Mr Chalker of the degree to which he and his officers felt some concern about the fact that Mr Parker had access to the data passing between the Australian Bureau and the Queensland Bureau of Criminal Investigation. I would not wish at this stage to go beyond saying that I have received a briefing from the Director concerning those matters. Senator JONES —I ask a supplementary question. I have just been informed that Mr Gunn, the Minister, did ask Sir Terence Lewis to stand aside. That has been confirmed. What is the Minister's answer to the question now in relation to that matter and in relation to the Bureau itself? Senator TATE —In answering Senator Jones my query was rather whether Mr Gunn had directed Sir Terence to stand aside or whether he had asked him, and whether that request had been acceded to. But I accept that, in any case, Sir Terence has stood aside for the duration of the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct. Clearly, the board of management of the ABCI will now have to be convened and will have to appoint from within its number a new chairman. I have no doubt that, in the discussions leading to that reconvening, the sorts of concerns which lay behind Senator Jones's questions, which I know are shared by all honourable senators around the chamber, will be very adequately and forcefully addressed. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Communications and it again relates to the papers which have been tabled in this place relating to Amann Aviation Pty Ltd. I refer to the continuing discrepancy between answers given by the Minister here and those given by Mr Duncan in the other place. Senator Evans is claiming that all of the relevant documents have been tabled, whereas Mr Duncan today has again confirmed that the documents to which he was referring in the answers that were raised in this place last week arose out of a part of the tender process, and that they are quite distinct from the later documents which were tabled in this House. Will the Minister now clarify whether the earlier documents to which Mr Duncan referred do or do not exist? If they do exist, will he table them in the Senate and will they be tabled in the House of Representatives? Senator GARETH EVANS —I repeat what I said in this place on Friday: there are no documents relating to the security issue which to my knowledge are in the possession of my Department or which are in my possession which bear upon this process and which were documents in the nature of minutes or notes and so on addressed to my Department, to my predecessor or to me which have not been either referred to or incorporated in the statement which I tabled on Friday. The statement which I tabled on Friday deals with, and is intended to deal with, the whole of the process from the original calling of the tenders through to the situation as it was last Friday morning. It deals with, among other things, the report of Chief Superintendent Dixon to the Tender Assessment Committee on 21 January. An extract from the minutes of those proceedings is set out as annexure 1 in the document I tabled on Friday. There are references to subsequent material that bear upon this issue. In the statement that I made on Friday not all of it was actually tabled because some of it is described as highly confidential Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence reports and so on. The reasons for not tabling it are set out, in turn, in the statement. The key documents, however, are there set out, including in particular the minute or the note for file of Chief Superintendent Dixon of 16 July which I referred to earlier in Question Time. As I understand it, that was the particular document which Mr Duncan, as I said earlier in Question Time, had in mind when he responded as he did. But he did so not having seen the document and on the basis of an imperfect understanding of its contents which he has subsequently made clear. Obviously, because of the nature of this process, I am not in a position to know precisely what Mr Duncan may have said in Question Time today. If there is any further room for misunderstanding it will certainly be clarified as soon as I possibly can. But that is the situation. I am the one with the particular function or responsibility for this area. I am the one with the most complete knowledge of the process and the documentation. The situation is as I have just described it, which is consistent with the way I have described it all the way through. Mr Duncan acknowledged the primacy of my description in his statement in the House of Representatives on Friday. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I preface my question by expressing the deep gratitude of the Opposition that we have such a completely equipped Minister to answer these questions. In light of the Minister's equipment, I ask him to tell the Opposition how he can explain that Mr Duncan is again referring to the fact that there are documents which are part of the tender process and which are not the later documents that were tabled in the House this morning. Does the Minister agree that there appears to be a strange mismatch between those words and the statement he has just made to the Senate in response to my question? Will he undertake to clarify the matter as soon as possible and, if there are further documents, to table them? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will clarify the matter with my colleague but I can assure Senator Chaney that there are no such further documents, other than the ones that I have described which are in turn all referred to in the memorandum. Senator BISHOP —Is the Special Minister of State aware of the most recent disclosure by the Australian Privacy Foundation that information on individuals is to be recorded on two different computers in relation to identity card details, one to contain the basic details of the individual and the other to hold the more private information, such as race, convictions and mental health? Is the Minister aware that this is the second leak of sensitive material to the Privacy Foundation and that it undermines her assertion, which is shared neither by the Auditor-General nor the Prime Minister, that computer material is highly protected within her own Department and that of the Minister for Community Services and Health, who incidentally appears already to have deserted the sinking ship and is now under the control of the first mate? Senator RYAN —I am having a bit of trouble with Senator Bishop's nautical metaphors, but I will put those to one side. Of course I am aware of the latest claimed leak by the so-called Australian Privacy Foundation. I am aware of it because sections of the media seem to think that on a Sunday night they have nothing better to do than to give some airspace to these beat-ups. I will repeat what I said in relation to the other allegedly leaked documents that Privacy Foundation has, which is that they are entirely irrelevant. There will be no secret dossier. There will be no separate file about the process of setting up the Australia Card system to which people will not have access. I have repeatedly said that the Australia Card file will have on it details relating to a person's identity, that is, his or her name, date of birth, residential and postal address and other names by which he or she is entitled or wishes to be known. As has been pointed out, repeatedly, the Register will also contain administrative details which are required for the issue of Australia Cards and for the lawful operation of the Register. These will be administrative details such as the date of card issue, details of any amendments made to the Register, where and when changes were made and by whom and other program management information. All of this, I stress for the enlightenment of honourable senators opposite and those sections of the media who seem to think that this is a big surprise, is set out in the legislation and therefore has been public information for some 12 months. This program management information such as when a person applies for a card and so forth will be required when assessing a person's application for an Australia Card, including verification of identity. It will be information, as I said, such as when a person was contacted, when an interview was arranged and which documents were produced to confirm identity. This information is essential for efficient card issue. It will not-I repeat not-be on a separate file but will be part of the Australia Card Register, and as such will be available for inspection by the individual. However, as this establishment information has no further use once it has been used to confirm identity and to facilitate the issuing of the card, it will then be deleted from the Register. Senator Bishop's question also went to reports in one of the weekend newspapers-I think it was the Times on Sunday-about the Commonwealth Auditor-General's report on security in practices relating to computer facilities. I should point out that the Auditor-General's report does not identify any occasions on which unauthorised access has been gained to the Department of Community Services and Health central computer installation. There has been no such incident. The protective security issues raised by the Auditor-General covered only physical security, that is physical access to rooms within buildings, and had nothing to do with computers at all. Physical access to computer terminals is only the first, and a low level, form of defence against unauthorised access. The Department's computer systems are protected by a highly sophisticated password and access control software which has not been subject to criticism by the Auditor-General. Senator Bishop might be interested to learn that the rooms concerned were located in the Victorian and Queensland regional offices and housed principally personal computers and local mini-computers. The issues raised were minor and the Auditor-General's report itself stated that the Department advised appropriate re- medial action. In any event the Australia Card is to be administered by the Health Insurance Commission, not the Department of Community Services and Health, and the Auditor-General has had no problems with computer services in the Health Insurance Commission. I remind honourable senators that the Australia Card computer system will be highly secure, with dedicated leased communication lines using the latest encryption devices to guarantee security from physical break-in, and the most sophisticated access control software to ensure only approved officers have access to the system. So it is quite clear that the Opposition, as usual, has nothing to run on in this matter except late Sunday night beat-ups and total misinterpretations of a fairly innocuous Auditor-General's report. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health seen reports in the newspapers, in particular today's Age under the headline: `Health bodies say 3 million Australians have mental illness'? Can the Minister confirm that 240,000 Australians are under intensive treatment, that 900,000 use mood altering drugs and that 1 1/2 million-that is 9 per cent of the population-suffer from some form of mental illness? As many of the people included in these figures are women, can the Minister say whether the Women's adviser in health matters will include this area for serious consideration under the women's health program? Senator RYAN —I have certainly read the articles referred to in Senator Crowley's question, but I have no brief from the Department of Community Services and Health yet to confirm or deny the statistics and whether or not the extent of mental health disorders in the community is as extensive as claimed in those articles. However, I think it is well established that there are forms of mental health disorders which afflict women particularly, or in greater numbers, and that there are often greater difficulties in women getting appropriate treatment for mental health disorders. I can assure Senator Crowley that in the development of our women's health strategy, currently being undertaken by a special consultant to Dr Blewett and me, we will be consulting closely with all the relevant health delivery and medical agencies that are in a position to give us advice on better and more appropriate responses to health disorders suffered by women. I would say in conclusion that mental health disorders in the entire community, not just those in respect of women, are of great concern and I will ask officers of the Department of Community Services and Health to prepare a response to the statistical information published in those newspaper articles. I agree with Senator Crowley that they are very extensive and will be of greater concern if they are in fact an accurate assessment of the extent of mental health disorders in the community. Senator PANIZZA —Is the Minister for the Environment and the Arts aware that the way has now been cleared for the Western Australian Government to build a polychlorinated biphenyl or PCB incinerator at Koolyanobbing, which is on the edge of the hard wheat growing areas of the State? Is he further aware that such a plant in such an area could jeopardise the hard wheat trade and also the meat trade from that area? Because of the serious nature of this matter, can the Minister assure me that he will endeavour to persuade the Western Australian Government to move the incinerator to a more remote area? Senator RICHARDSON —I must confess that I do not know about this proposal. I will endeavour to find out its possible effects on the Western Australian environment in the discussions that I will be having on Tuesday of next week with the Western Australian Premier and his Minister for Environment. I will take up the matter if I think it needs to be taken up. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia) —Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented. The PRESIDENT —Is this a personal explanation, Senator Bolkus? Senator BOLKUS —Yes, in fact that is what I thought I was getting the call for. The PRESIDENT —You said that you claim to have been misrepresented, which would be dealt with under a different standing order. If you wish to make a personal explanation, you will need leave to do so. Senator BOLKUS —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator BOLKUS —Mr President, my personal explanation relates to two newspaper reports which appeared in this morning's Press, one in this morning's edition of the Australian and the other in a couple of other newspapers. On page 3 of this morning's edition of the Australian there is a report under the heading `Labor Senator Attacks ID Card'. The report was written by Mr Mike Seccombe, a journalist to whom I spoke last night. The report states: Senator Bolkus indicated his opposition to the Australia Card at the annual general meeting of the Australian Society of Labor Lawyers . . . where he called for the Government to abandon the legislation. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator BOLKUS —I must congratulate this slow conversion on the other side on this issue-it has taken them two years to get to it. I wish to say in respect to that article that I did not speak at the Labor lawyers conference, nor did I have to vote. I made this position clear last night to the journalist. However, despite that, somehow this article has been written. In an article written by Steve Wright in this morning's Adelaide Advertiser and also in an article written by Anna Keating and Paul Grigson in this morning's Sydney Daily Telegraph the following allegation is made in a paragraph which is common to both articles: Senior South Australian Left-wing MP, Senator Bolkus, supporting the move, said he saw `no hypocrisy' in campaigning against the card outside Parliament while being obligated by Federal Caucus to vote for the legislation in the Senate. I did not say any such thing. Once again, I did not speak at the conference and made no such reference. I did in fact speak to journalists on the way back to the hotel after the conference where, when asked about my opposition to the card, expressed two years ago in a debate which I believe had died out 15 months ago, I said that I had not spoken publicly on the issue for 15 months and that I would not now. I felt that `we all in the ALP'-and these are my precise words-`recognise we could argue these matters out within the party and we do so but accept party decisions as being final'. Debate resumed from 15 September, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Senate take note of the statement and papers. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.10) —The importance of a debate on the present Budget was underlined by what was said by the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, in Question Time today when he complained about the fact that misrepresentation of argument was going on. He said that attitudinal and behavioural changes are needed if Australia is to have economic recovery. I would respectfully agree with that statement by Minister Walsh. I believe that attitudinal and behavioural changes are required for Australia's economic recovery. Senator Walsh went on to say that he believed that those changes were threatened by opportunists. Again I agree with him, but I believe that the opportunists who are threatening economic recovery by hindering the attitudinal and behavioural changes that are required are the members of the present Government. We have recently debated the fact that on the issue of privatisation the Government distorted the debate throughout 1985 and until a few months ago, and now complains about the difficulty of getting a rational debate. That is what is happening with respect to the state of our economy generally. The Government has refused to face up to reality and as a result it is hindering the changes that are required if we are to get out of our economic predicament. The debate about the Budget has gone into a stage which was not planned by this Government. That stage was commenced by the honesty of expression by Minister Walsh when he addressed the Labor lawyers in Perth over the weekend. It is clear from the reports that the Finance Minister expected his comments to be private; he did not expect them to be reported. But a reporter was present and those comments have now been widely published around Australia. The misgivings that the Finance Minister has expressed about the economic position of Australia are a contribution to a public understanding of our economic situation, and a contribution that was long overdue from a member of this Government. It was apparently all right for the Minister to give his view to a private meeting of Labor lawyers. There is a strong distinction between the view that he expressed there and the view he has expressed in the Senate. It would appear that for the Government it is all right to tell truth to the Labor lawyers, but there has to be some rather lesser version for the public debate in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. It would appear that it was the Government's intention to have the rest of Australia and Parliament hoodwinked by the euphoria salesman Keating and Hawke over the Budget which has just been brought down. It is unfortunate that Senator Walsh was pulled back into line by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) today. We saw Senator Walsh in Question Time reflecting the sorts of answers which he gave in Question Time in the Senate last week. On Friday Senator Walsh was trying to demolish the Opposition's claim that the Budget was complacent. On Friday, as indeed on every day at Question Time last week, Senator Walsh defended the Budget. On 16 September-and this was the closest he went to any concession about the Budget-he said: . . . I do not think anybody is pretending that all of the country's problems are solved. The Treasurer's comment, repeated I think many times yesterday, that the country has turned a corner is, I believe, to any rational person beyond dispute. One could also add that we are making progress in the right direction at a significant rate. I am concerned at the representations made by the Government about the Budget, for the reasons that Minister Walsh has expressed so clearly in Question Time today-that unless we can get attitudinal and other changes in Australia, we will not solve our economic problems. We will not get those attitudinal changes if we do not have a straightforward and honest debate-and, even more important, a debate that is not conducted on the basis that anybody who opposes the Government's position will be traduced in this place. Until the weekend it was mainly the Opposition which had expressed concern about the Budget. A few commentators-and Ross Gittins of the Sydney Morning Herald stands out-warned about the fragility of the Budget and described it as `a Budget of wasted opportunities'. Mr Gittins called it a `she'll be right' Budget, a `do nothing' Budget, but he was one of the few who came out and expressed doubt and concern. I express the hope that Mr Gittins will not be subjected to the sort of personal attack that we saw on Mr Moore and Mr Elliott last week, the sort of attack that seems to be par for the course for anybody who dares to put his or her head above the parapet to criticise the policies of this Government. Senator Button —He doesn't put his head in the public money trough; that is the difference. Senator CHANEY —I am glad to see the Leader of the Government joining in Senator Walsh's habits. But the point is that until Senator Walsh blew the whistle on his colleagues very few commentators outside the Opposition had been prepared to give a warning to the Australian people about the deficiencies of the Budget. It is important to remember that it has been only 16 months since the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said that Australia was headed towards becoming a banana republic. Fifteen months ago the Prime Minister saw fit to make a televised address to the nation about the crisis that we faced. Then, of course, 15 months later, in last week's Budget, we had the presentation of a very euphoric picture-what John Howard had described as `a lotus land picture'-of where Australia stands. The change is one which I think is worthy of comment because at the weekend Senator Walsh joined us in admitting that Australia's present path is a path which leads down the Argentinean road, that all is not well and that the Budget is not appropriate. Fifteen months ago the public was widely concerned about the state of the economy because of three factors: the collapsing Australian dollar; the continuous reporting of the balance of payments crisis; and the continuing reporting of our ever-increasing foreign debt. The only thing that has really changed now is that the dollar has appreciated and that is largely related to international movements of currency, changes in the value of the American dollar and so on. It still remains true that Australia is living way beyond its means. It is doing so internationally and nationally. The fact that we are doing it internationally is borne out by the fact that the Government is predicting a foreign trade deficit in excess of $11 billion. We have what is claimed to be a balanced Budget at the national level but the Government has quite clearly fudged on that and I believe that the whole of Australia is aware that the true deficit is closer to $2.5 billion. There is the $1 billion worth of assets sales and the unusually large amount which has been paid from currency transactions that makes up that difference. There is no real doubt-there was no real doubt at the time of the Prime Minister's address to the nation-that the solution to Australia's ongoing problems, with our ever-increasing international debt, involves more savings on the part of the Australian people, higher productivity on the part of the Australian work force and the attraction of greater investment if we are to get the increase in productivity which is essential for our recovery. So far that has not been produced by the Government. If one looks at the Budget Papers one finds that the Government is telling us that productivity did not rise during the last financial year; productivity declined. There was a decline in our national productivity in 1986-87, a year in which we were told by Mr Keating that we were moving to banana republic status and by the Prime Minister that we were in a state of crisis akin to war. There can be no satisfaction for the Government or Australia and no solution for Australia when productivity has further declined. The present Budget predicts a very small increase in productivity in 1987-88. We have yet to see whether that will be achieved but the improvement which is predicted is quite marginal. As far as investment is concerned-which, I believe, even the Government concedes is essential-our progress has been woeful. In 1986-87 business investment fell to an historically low proportion of gross domestic product, 9.7 per cent. Our national productivity is negative, national savings are falling, we have a low level of private investment and, not surprisingly, as a consequence our debt rose by around $20 billion. Competitiveness declined further as our unit labour costs grew by about 7 1/2 per cent, whereas the average for our trading partners was 3 per cent. In other words, the gap between us and the rest of the world widened and our inflation rate-a further area of concern and difficulty for us-declined to 9.3 per cent while overseas the average was less than half of that. A series of indicators shows a worsening of our fundamental position, which is masked substantially by the fact that our dollar has recovered in value, for reasons which have little to do with the fundamentals of our economy. The Budget-the Government's summary statement of where we are-admits to some of the key areas of difficulty that we face. There is the Treasurer's assessment of labour costs. Page 4 of the printed Budget Speech states: In particular, we must make sure that labour costs in Australia are competitive with those of our trading partners. What is the position with respect to our labour costs? As I have already said, our labour costs are rising at more than twice the rate of those of our competitors. Although the Treasurer says that we must make sure that labour costs in Australia are competitive, the Government, in its own Budget documents, is making it clear that they will not be competitive. The arguments which are being used by the Government again lack the honesty that is required if we are to achieve genuine understanding in the community of the problems that we face and the attitudinal changes which the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) only today has indicated are necessary. On that same page of the Budget Speech the Treasurer said: The Australian community has shown enormous maturity and common sense in responding to the trade crisis by exercising wage restraint. This has helped sustain the new-found competitiveness of Australian industry. The Treasurer went on to say: Most importantly it has ensured that the difficult international trading conditions have not led to a surge in unemployment. Of all those statements, only the latter is true. The fact is that there has not been a degree of wage restraint which goes anywhere near ensuring that labour costs in Australia are competitive with those of our trading partners. The reverse is true. Senator Button —It's a lot of hocus-pocus. You compare our manufacturing labour costs with the United States of America. Senator CHANEY —A little later I shall give some figures on the rate of change of labour costs in this country and in those of our trading partners. The figures are clear and there for all to see. There has been an enormous change in the nominal wage rates in Australia. The sort of interjection made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate is based on the fact that there was a substantial devaluation of the Australian dollar, which on a temporary basis changes the apparent international cost of our labour. The Government has been able to claim an increase in competitiveness. That is not based on the control of labour costs, because they have been rising at a much faster rate than in the United States or anywhere else. The increased competitiveness has occurred because of the collapse of the Australian dollar. The Government has chosen to make a virtue of that. It has been completely confused on the matter. The Leader of the Government in the Senate told us in a speech about a year ago that manufacturers could rely on an Australian dollar worth about US62c, but today's dollar is worth about 73c. The competitive labour rates to which he referred and which he has discussed with manufacturers are rather ephemeral in view of our currency movements in the past 12 months. The Government also acknowledged in the Budget Speech: . . . the magnitude of our trading problem is such that we still have a long way to go. That is true, but the same Budget Papers disclosed that the trading problems, although slightly diminished as a share of the gross domestic product, continue to be a serious problem for Australia. The Government predicts a trade deficit of over $11 billion. Obviously, that will involve another steep increase in our public and private debt. Where is the appropriate action to reverse that serious position? The Budget predicts wage growth totally out of line with that of our competitors and higher interest rates and higher inflation than for our competitors, yet the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, claims that we are becoming more competitive. We can become more competitive in those circumstances only if we are again subject to a devaluation of the Australian dollar. At the moment, as I said, we in fact have an appreciating dollar and therefore our lack of competitiveness is made even worse. I am sorry that Senator Button will not be participating in the debate today. It is hard to imagine how he can argue that we are going to get investment in export industries for Australia, given the combination of circumstances that I have just mentioned. The Government has at last caught up with the rhetoric of the microeconomic reforms which the Opposition has been urging for some time. Again, Minister Walsh this morning on the AM program put some emphasis on the need for microeconomic reforms. He said, `You are not going to solve Australia's economic problems just from the Budget; there are all these other matters that have to be addressed'. Perhaps Senator Button will recall the approach which the Opposition took to the Budget last year, when we realised the fact that microeconomic reforms needed to be made if there was to be a substantial improvement in the investment climate in this country. It took the Prime Minister of Australia until a few weeks ago, when he addressed a conference of economists, to pick up the point made by the Opposition more than a year ago, namely, that microeconomic reform was also essential if we were to get investment recovery in Australia. I commend to the Government a further study of the policies we produced last year in the document entitled `Policies for Business' as a summary of the areas which require the urgent attention of this government. They required its urgent attention then; they require its urgent attention now. A further point which is fundamental, and it relates to the sorts of policy issues we canvassed a year ago, is the essential need for labour market reform to be undertaken if we are to get economic recovery. The fact of the matter is that labour market reform is substantially stalled under this Administration. The Budget claims that productivity is important and, indeed, there are some very optimistic statements about the fact that the Government has moved to the two-tier wages system which, of course, places emphasis on negotiations which are based on productivity improvement. But I draw the attention of the Government to the fact that productivity has not improved. During this year in which the second tier wage approach has been adopted, the Budget Papers show that productivity has in fact declined, and only a very marginal increase in productivity is predicted for the current year. I suggest that the rhetoric of the Government with respect to its wages policy and the two-tier wages system is in no way borne out by the figures which the Government itself has disclosed in this Budget. We have the further worrying fact that the trade union movement, in its publication Australia Reconstructed, has started to direct Australia down precisely the wrong course if we are to get economic recovery. It is notable that Ministers such as Mr Dawkins and Senator Button have been very cautious in their statements on Australia Reconstructed; but the document, which has been produced by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and which is clearly to be the subject of a great deal of trade union action and pressure over the coming 12 months, would add greatly to the inflexibility of the Australian economy at a time when the Government itself has been arguing for far greater flexibility. The idea that there should be a greater degree of directed investment and that there should be a proportion of Australia's national savings pre-empted by government and compulsorily invested in areas which are partly directed by the trade union movement is scarcely likely to encourage the free investment in this economy which is required if we are to achieve the productivity increases which are essential to solving our problems. There is no proposal from this Government to remedy the moribund enforcement provisions. It is interesting that in May of this year, just prior to the election, we had Minister Willis telling the Parliament that the enforcement provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act were ineffective. He said that they were moribund, and he produced legislation which proposed to put effective enforcement provisions into the law. We now find that the ACTU is directing the Government that it will not have legislation which introduces effective enforcement provisions. So, in the vital area of labour market reform, which is so central to the solution of Australia's economic problems, we find the Government with its hands tied and we find it adopting procedures with respect to wages and productivity which are simply proving to be ineffective. If a single significant issue arises out of the publication of the present Budget, that issue is the rate at which progress must be made if Australia is to be secure. Budget Paper No. 1 contains what is effectively an apology for the rate of change which the Government has sought to undertake. Under the heading `The Pace of Adjustment' in Budget Paper No. 1 we get a lengthy discussion about whether practical policies could be implemented to achieve more rapid adjustment. Clearly, the Government's attitude to that is that the answer is no. So, we have a rate of adjustment proposed which is perilous in the extreme and which means that Australia is extremely vulnerable to any downturns in economic activity. I will quote from what the Government published in Budget Paper No. 1. The point is made again about why it is important that we have a frank and honest debate about these issues in the Budget. It is said on page 51: There are therefore limits to what government on its own can achieve, although political leadership is, of course, important in building community acceptance. It is critical that the community understands the forces at work in the economy and the trade-offs that are possible, particularly trade-offs that involve current restraint and changes to past practices in return for reasonable expectations of improved circumstances in the future. There are many signs that this understanding is on the move in Australia. I wanted to quote that because it brings out the vital point that government has a lead role in this. What is said by government is important in creating the understanding which permits the changes to be made which are required for our economic recovery. The Government's statements on this Budget, with the honourable exception of the statement this weekend of the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, are statements which cloud the public understanding of the vital and very difficult issues that face Australians. There is a need to understand that wage rates that are not based on increases in productivity simply lead to more inflation and lower competitiveness. The fact is that such wage rises simply lead to no real increase in wages at all. That fact should be clearly understood, given the experience of recent years. Those simple points, which are so vital to the changes that we seek, are being clouded by the approach that the Government has adopted. There has been debate at other times in this place about the pattern of debate on these issues. I have referred previously to the debate on privatisation, which was a classic example of the debate being distorted by the Government in a way which has made the implementation of rational policies on privatisation more difficult for the Government. It does not really sit in the mouth of the Prime Minister to complain about the difficulty of getting rational debate on this issue when we find that he has described privatisation as: . . . a one-off fire sale, a sale of the century, of your assets-the assets of the people of Australia. That would transfer them into the hands of a privileged few, to the cost of every one of us. The Treasurer, Mr Keating, has described it as `simply vandalism of Australia's great public authorities'. I again express my protest and my concern that the debate on these issues has been so fundamentally distorted. In exactly the same way there has been a fundamental distortion of the debate about labour market reform, with the Government engaging in a scare campaign in May of last year on the issue of our industrial relations policy, which gave little credit to the policies that we put forward and which in fact masked substantial labour agreement with the need for a great deal of labour market flexibility in this country. What has happened with respect to this Budget is that the Government has caught itself on its own hook and is now wriggling to get off, to the great detriment of the country. As far as I can see from the comments made by Senator Walsh, the only real quarrel that he has with the proposals that we have put forward for economic recovery is that he disagrees with us on the need for cuts in taxation. Apart from that, it appears that he is in broad agreement with the program that we have put forward. In the limited time left for me to speak, I will pass on from the economic impact of this Budget which, in my view is a Budget which is a gamble with Australia's future; a Budget which has left the economic future in the lap of the gods-or perhaps with the gnomes of Zurich or the financiers of Tokyo would be more accurate-and a Budget that will succeed only if international circumstances, and in particular capital flows which are affected by extraneous influences, are completely favourable to us. I turn to discuss the social side of the Budget and the impact that the present Government is having on a number of institutions. For example, one could talk of the impact that the Government is having on the health system and the imbalance that it is creating between public and private health care in this country to the detriment of those who provide private health care and, more importantly, to the detriment of those who could be receiving an efficient service through the private health system but who are being thrown back on to the public health system to the detriment of the rest of the community. That sort of fundamental imbalance in the way that health care is delivered in Australia is part of a process that has been going on for some years, which has lead to queues and which has led to the provision of ameliorative measures in this Budget. Millions of dollars have been provided to try to do away with the queues in public hospitals and so on. But the fundamental error that the Government has made in attacking the private health care system by reducing the extent of government assistance and subsidy to that system is certainly showing up in reduced standards of health care around Australia. Even more important is the drift of circumstances against families with dependants which is continuing under this Government and under this Budget. In this Budget the Government has sought to make much of its commitment to Australian families. It has done that by extending the family income supplement arrangements that were introduced by the Fraser Government in its final Budget and by extending additional, very welcome assistance to low income families. The fundamental point I want to make is that nothing has been done in this Budget to address the question of where the burden of adjustment should lie in the Australian community. What has been happening under this Government is that a greater and greater burden has been borne by those Australians who have dependants. The Government, by failing to acknowledge in the tax system the cost of dependency, has made the burdens on families with children very much greater over recent years. The sad fact about this Budget is that the only families who are getting any assistance are those on low incomes when the reality is that a very substantial number of middle income families are feeling the strain of the economic circumstances. That is the first complaint that I wish to make about the Budget's approach to social matters. The Government has chosen to treat the family as a welfare matter. It has chosen to ignore the advice that it has been given by observers such as Bettina Cass, who was commissioned by the Government to work on its behalf on issues affecting families. It has deserted middle income Australian families. It has said that assistance will be provided only to those people who can be classified as welfare cases. Just as seriously, the sort of assistance provided to low income families means that many of those families will be locked into a poverty trap. Let me take the simple example of a family on one gross income of $330 per week with two children and living in rented accommodation. That family will receive considerable assistance from the Government under its family assistance package. That is a very good thing. But the negative of that assistance is that in order for that family to improve its situation by $10 per week, it would need an additional income of about $90 per week. In other words, an income earner on $330 per week looking to improve his or her position will have to get an income of $420 per week to gain even $10 per week extra advantage. What the Government is doing in its welfare approach to families is locking them into what are called poverty traps, but essentially, it is providing a disincentive for families to improve their position by hard work and achievement. The Government's social engineering in this Budget is a disaster. The social engineering aspect of the Budget ranks with the craven failure of the Government to come to grips with Australia's basic economic problems as the great failures of the Budget. On behalf of the Opposition, I move the following amendment: At end of motion, add: ``, but the Senate notes: (a) the failure of the Budget to: (i) reduce the level of Commonwealth spending on its own programmes and therefore the Government's call on national resources (ii) address underlying causes of our chronic uncompetitiveness, in particular the reasons for our extremely low productivity and excessive wages growth, and (iii) create an economic environment conducive to a substantial lift in business investment; (b) that because of these failings, the Government expects to see continuing growth in Australia's foreign debt; and (c) the criticisms of the Minister for Finance in his speech to Labor Lawyers in Perth on 19 September about the Government's lack of courage in not further cutting spending, and his warning about the dangers of Australia heading further down the `Argentinian road', and calls on the Government to introduce a Mini Budget during the current Parliamentary sittings to address these deficiencies in the 1987-88 Budget.'' I commend the amendment to the Senate. I believe that, at a period when Australia faces very great risks in the future, the Government has lost its nerve and failed to come to grips with Australia's problems. It has done that not only on the economic front but also on the social front to the enduring detriment of Australian families. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.40) —Last Tuesday night the Treasurer, Mr Keating, proudly announced to the Parliament, to Australia and to the world at large, assuming it was listening, that he was presenting a virtually balanced Budget. We have all discovered since then that some of it was certainly done with mirrors; nevertheless, that was the proud claim that he made last Tuesday night. He did so, of course, not only confident-and justifiably so-that he had pulled the rug out from underneath the Opposition, which had been howling for a balanced Budget for some time, but also sure that he would receive accolades from Australian big business representatives and the national and international financial sector. This Budget and its contents were the culmination of four years of moving to the right politically, economically and socially by the Hawke Labor Government. It represents the final severing of any ties at all this Government may have had to its predecessor the Whitlam Labor Government. From the beginning, the Hawke-Keating alliance within this Labor Government has been determined not to make the same errors as the Whitlam Government did when that Government remained true to Australian Labor Party policies and philosophies and, in doing so, attracted massive opposition from the domestic business community and foreign investors. So, over the last four years, the Hawke-Keating Government has implemented cuts to Australian welfare expenditure demanded by the business community; it has abandoned its commitment to Aboriginal land rights; it has ignored the practicalities of the needs of Australian women; it has introduced tertiary fees, albeit by another name, and it looks set to introduce tertiary fees properly fairly shortly if some of the reports in today's papers are true; it has largely ignored, as Senator Chaney said, the problems of Australian families; it has abandoned its commitment to freedom of information, privacy protection and civil liberties; and in a thousand other ways it has become the doyen of the New Right. In this Budget the Government reintroduced negative gearing for property investors on the thin and very fallacious ground that this would provide low income housing in Sydney-only in Sydney and only because an election in New South Wales is looming. It also flagged further deregulation policies and a plan for privatisation. The first question that we need to ask ourselves is whether a balanced Budget is necessarily a good thing. The answer, of course, lies in the way in which the balance is achieved. Of course this Budget has been applauded by the Australian business community and foreign investors whom it was designed to please. The Government's almost balancing trick has been achieved in part by selling off some government assets and in part by higher than expected taxation revenue. However, the real price for the balanced Budget has been a series of expenditure reduction programs announced in last year's Budget-things like the postponement of pensioners' consumer price index increases, the postponement of the poverty traps legislation and so on. This situation was further exacerbated by the contents of this year's May economic statement. This chamber-indeed, this Parliament-did not get a proper chance to debate the May expenditure cuts which were made in the health, social security and education areas, and which were announced as part of the May economic statement because we went to an early election. But I need not remind this place, nor the community at large, that despite the fact that we did not have a chance to debate those issues and point out the problems, those expenditure cuts, which people are beginning to feel now, will in fact reduce the availability of education, social security, community services and health to low income households and to those two million Australians living below the poverty line. They will feel the effects of the cuts made in the last Budget and the last mini-Budget, notwithstanding the fact that few of us got the opportunity to point out exactly who was going to be hit and how hard. At a time of massive levels of unemployment and falling living standards for average and low income families, further expenditure cuts will create a class of permanently homeless, under-educated, poor and unhealthy Australians. Along with expenditure cuts, the big business sector, of course, regards further deregulation of financial markets as vital-vital, that is, to its short term interests. Public interest questions and, in particular long term public interest questions, are rarely raised and answered, or rarely listened to if they are raised and answered, when issues like privatisation, foreign investment and ownership and negative gearing are mentioned. Where is the long term sense in reducing our foreign debt by selling Australian businesses, farms and property to foreign investors? Why has there been no official Government response to the statement of the Chairman of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd that he would be happy if 40 per cent of the big Australian were foreign owned. When I raised that question in this place last week the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) chose not to answer the challenge in that question, and I hope that at some stage during this debate on the Budget somebody from the Government benches will come up with some sort of response to that problem. Why does Australia not have, for example, a public register of foreign ownership? Why, in our desire to drive down the foreign debt-at least on paper-by whatever means possible do we not realise that we run a real risk of being the pawn in foreign boardrooms? Our resources, our labour, our markets and our economy will be manipulated to the best ends of overseas decision makers. The last thing they will be concerned with is the ultimate well-being of the majority of Australians. Even without ownership of our resources some of our allies have sacrificed Australia's economy to their own short term political ends. Protectionist policies, illustrated by the United States wheat subsidies implemented to meet the political ends of mid-term elections, are a classic example. Australia's economic well-being is further threatened by the moves that are being made in the United States at the moment with regard to doing something to sort out America's trade imbalance with Japan-the solution for which could well be very seriously detrimental to this country. Yet, is the Australian Government prepared to take steps that are likely in any way at all to halt the process that the United States Government has embarked upon? With the enthusiastic support of the Opposition it is refusing, at the moment at least, to retaliate by using, for example, the only effective means available to it; that is, the bases, the so-called joint facilities. Even the Philippines manages to get a substantial rental out of the use that the United States makes of its land, and we sit back and watch the American Government, the American Congress, play with our economy without retaliating in any way at all. A further problem of deregulation, of course, comes from the increased investment overseas of Australian savings. When this also involves a tax concession to the companies and organisations concerned, the problem to the Australian economy is exacerbated. One of the few things that the Australian Democrats welcomed in the Budget and post-Budget announcements by this government was the Treasurer's statement that he has decided to reconsider the tax exempt status of superannuation funds as part of its review of company tax. We have deplored in this place time and again the tendency for superannuation funds and the big life funds to invest overseas. We have sought from the Government a commitment that it will encourage those funds to invest in Australia to create jobs in Australia. That they are incapable of investing off-shore, speculating essentially in the Australian dollar and retaining tax-free status, should have been reconsidered by this Government some considerable time ago. The Australian Democrats, therefore, believe that the Government should implement a tax on superannuation funds' assets which are invested overseas, and only on that portion which is invested overseas. Funds which invest heavily overseas would therefore be taxed quite significantly and at a much higher rate than those which invest predominantly in Australia, that is, those funds which invest in a way which means that Australia's best interests are being looked after. Such a tax on the profits from overseas investment would give superannuation funds an incentive to invest in Australia, rather than going off-shore. We would want the revenue generated by taxing superannuation funds to provide socially useful things such as better education, social security improvements and health and housing services. This would raise the living standards of those Australians who have borne the brunt of the Government's expenditure cuts and who are not wealthy enough to benefit from the negative gearing incentives which the Government restored to the wealthiest Australians in this year's Budget. One of the greatest sell-outs to the prevailing economic spirit of courting the wealthy at the expense of the poor was the decision to reinstate what the Treasurer (Mr Keating) himself has called in the past the `rort' of negative gearing. It is a classic case in which the corporate welfare sector is being pandered to at the expense of the social welfare sector. It is a classic example of the Government arguing that it is giving assistance indirectly to those who need it when it could far more effectively give that assistance directly. The draft White Paper entitled `Reform of the Australian Taxation System' gave the powerful equity reason to support the Government's original legislation to abolish negative gearing for rental property. Table 22A/3 of that document makes it pretty clear who will benefit from this newly-announced sell-out, represented by the reintroduction of negative gearing for rental properties. The table, which was drawn up by the Treasury when the Government was still concerned about making the tax system equitable, showed that in 1982-83 14 per cent of individuals with negatively geared properties would have had taxable incomes of over $100,000 if negative gearing were allowed, and less than 2 per cent with negatively geared properties would have had incomes below $20,000. One wonders how many of those were the people mentioned by the Opposition in recent days-millionaires, at least on paper, with nominal income of $5,000 per annum. So one needs to ask why the Government chose to reinstate negative gearing for rental property when it could have acted in a more direct way to stimulate the housing market, particularly in low income areas, thereby reducing a very significant problem for low income earners and low income families in particular. The answer that the Government gave was ostensibly to increase the supply of rental accommodation-as I said earlier, especially in Sydney, where the Australian Labor Party is facing an election. Apart from making wealthy Australians even wealthier, this action will do very little indeed to provide more housing for average and low income Australians. The Government has produced no statistics to show that the majority of money spent on negatively-geared properties is spent in those areas where low income families are likely to seek or get a roof over their heads. It cannot and it will not assist those sorts of people to get rental accommodation in either the short term or the long term. Even if it did, as I have already said, it could not possibly do so as effectively as giving direct assistance to people in need. Had the Government directed the money it saved by abolishing negative gearing towards the provision of low cost public housing or to subsidised rental the people who most desperately need assistance to get housing would have been given that opportunity in a far better way than this measure is likely to do. Property values have already risen. Looking at real estate advertisements over the weekend I was not surprised-rather I was somewhat disturbed-to note that almost every advertisement for a sale or rental opportunity in the property market, that is for investment rental property, indicated that negative gearing had come back in. Great play was made in both Saturday's and Sunday's real estate markets of the fact that the Government had done an about turn. Stories appeared in the economic sections of most of the daily newspapers on the weekend to encourage people to enter the housing market. What happened? Housing prices went up by about 10 per cent within days of the Government's announcement. This morning's newspapers indicate that some properties have almost doubled in price from what they were valued at 12 months ago to what they sold for at auction over the weekend. So it is not the poor and the low income earners who will benefit from the reintroduction of negative gearing and the abolition of the ban on it. It is the people who are already well-off and who wish to minimise their tax. So much for the Government's arguments that we need something as draconian as an ID card to ensure that people pay their fair share of tax. When it suits the Government it is quite prepared to pander to the wealthy in the community. As property prices rise, which they have already begun to do, rents will rise. Mr Terry Burke, a Senior Lecturer in Urban Studies at the Swinburne Institute of Technology, is reported in today's Age as denying that there even was a shortage of rental accommodation. Senator Richardson —He didn't live in Sydney. Senator HAINES —The Government is flapping around with mirrors to try to justify something that, as Senator Richardson has just said, was introduced solely for the purposes of achieving some better chance of the Labor Government's survival in New South Wales, by pandering to property developers on the Sydney market. Mr Burke went on to say that the boost in property investment would not increase rental stocks. One real estate agent was reported to have said: . . . rents are already quite high, and they are going to stay high. There will be no benefit to low income earners from this move by the Government. Mr Keating stated in the Budget that the reintroduction of this form of negative gearing is symmetrical in the sense that all forms of negative gearing are now permissible. Fantastic! The Democrats have been arguing that the reverse symmetry should occur. Instead of reintroducing negative gearing on property markets to make things symmetrical in negative gearing, the Government, if it were serious about equity, would have abolished all forms of negative gearing, particularly the form of negative gearing that applies to foreign financed loans for the purchase of Australian companies by Australians. That new form of monopoly in this country, based on foreign borrowings, does very little for our economy, for productivity or for increases in employment. If the Government had abolished negative gearing for funds borrowed from overseas to finance those sorts of takeovers of Australian companies, it would have been provided with over $1 billion in revenue and would have helped to reduce our foreign debt at the same time as increasing our revenue. But apparently this Government is not interested in doing anything that would antagonise its wealthy friends. That is why there is very little difference, an ever decreasingly small difference, between this ALP Government and the Liberal-National Party alternative. Although this Budget has been well received by businessmen and bankers, we all need to keep in mind that we still face internal and external economic problems that could push us back on to the banana republic path mentioned by Mr Keating some time ago. None of those problems have been addressed in the context of this Budget. Our internal economic problems are centred on, of course, the external economic sector as we become part of an increasingly international economic scene. We are already heavily in debt overseas and we continue to run up a big current account deficit, yet all this Government can do is set the economy to attract foreign investment so that we will exchange debts for equity; that is, we will turn our foreign debt problems into a foreign ownership problem. If the Government thinks that is clever, I am afraid I have to disagree with it. It causes a massive problem for Australia when we turn from a large foreign indebtedness to a foreign ownership situation. Essentially, the 1987-88 Budget has ended any claim at all that the Hawke Government had to achieving what it called restraint with equity. The Government has admitted that over 600,000 Australians will remain unemployed. The family assistance package is certainly welcome, but it is a very limited start to the fulfilment of the election promise to eliminate child poverty by 1990. The much vaunted promise to lift nearly 600,000 children out of poverty by that year has resulted simply in delayed expenditure of some $250m in 1987-88. This will lift no more than 130,000 children now in poverty out of it, compared with 580,000 children in families below the poverty line, leaving 450,000 children and their families in poverty. With two years left to fulfil its promise, this Government has more than two-thirds of that task alone to achieve. This Budget destroys the efforts of the Commonwealth Schools Commission to improve the education of children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds; yet we hear a lot about this Government's concern for those people who are in some way disadvantaged by isolation or low income. The Government has cut back even further grants to development programs, such as the programs geared to the needs of those groups I have just mentioned: the isolated people and people on low incomes. The basic learning program and the participation and equity program are two such examples. Neither will be renewed despite recent Schools Commission recommendations that they be followed by new programs. This is despite the fact that the Government boasted during the election that it wanted to increase school retention rates to year 12 to 66 per cent by the early 1990s. It sits somewhat in line with the contradictory nature of the Government arguing prior to the May mini-Budget that it wanted to encourage training and retraining programs, and then cutting $30m off technical and further education, one of the major areas where training and retraining takes place; not just training for those youngsters who have left school earlier than they should have, but also retraining programs for mature aged people, particularly breadwinners who have found themselves redundant and therefore unemployed, with skills that are no longer useful to the community and therefore very much in need of retraining programs. The Government's so-called commitment to industrial democracy becomes a mockery when the allocation to increase awareness of industrial democracy in both the private and public sectors is reduced by a little under 19 per cent in real terms and the allocation for occupational health and safety is reduced by almost 17 per cent in real terms. The real increase of about 10 per cent to the adult migrant education program has been achieved at considerable cost. The English as a second language program for primary schools, which was cut in the last Budget, was supposed to be picked up by the States but it has become moribund in at least Queensland and Western Australia, and it will not be long before other States follow suit. The idea of a Federal government cutting its deficit back and cutting its expenditure back by passing on the requirement for expenditure to State governments is ludicrous. Ultimately the taxpayers must pay for the services they demand in terms of appropriate education, appropriate health care, appropriate social welfare benefits and even sufficient roads. Simply to cut back on its expenditure and to expect State government to pick up the tab is a sleight of hand that I would not have thought was worthy of a Federal Labor government that argues that it favours social justice and economic equity. The closure of migrant centres in Queensland and Western Australia to force migrant services back into the community has of course ended, among other things, the provision of child care centres, which allowed migrant women to participate in the community, to attend English language classes and to break down their isolation. So much for equal opportunity, not just for women but for other disadvantaged groups and, in particular, migrant groups, especially those whose grasp of the English language is limited. Once again in this Budget we have seen disadvantaged and low income people suffer further hardships while the bankers and businessmen in Australia applaud the Government for its generosity in their direction. Senator Chaney, in his response to the Budget, talked about the need for Australia to fight its way out of the economic mire. Australia will never fight its way out of the long term economic mire if it persists in promoting the theory of the trickle down effect. Making the rich richer will not lift the poor out of poverty. Encouraging non-productive development through deregulation and tax concessions will not reduce unemployment or increase exports. Pandering to the self-centred demands of Australia's high rollers will not reduce our foreign debt or improve our balance of trade problems. This Budget heralds yet another win, as I said earlier, for the corporate welfare sector at the expense of the social welfare sector. I was asked last week on television what marks I would give this Government for this Budget. I responded without a great deal of thought, saying that I would give it 10 out of 10 for appearances and, being generous, five out of 10 for effectiveness. I suspect, given the things that have happened in the property market in particular in the last few days, that that five out of 10 should be significantly devalued to something like 2 1/2 out of 10. This Government has abandoned its principles, its policies and its commitment to those in need and it no longer deserves the name of the Australian Labor Party. It no longer deserves to pretend that it represents the disadvantaged or even the workers in this country, and this Budget is its final abandonment of everything it ever stood for. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.08) —I commence by seconding the amendment moved by Senator Chaney. I propose to devote my remarks to addressing a number of the myths which this Government and particularly its chief budgetary spokesmen have so sedulously sought to foster in less than a week since the Budget was brought down last Tuesday evening. There are many such myths but the chief ones would be as follows. There is, first, the myth of the balanced Budget. There is, secondly, the myth of expenditure restraint. There is, thirdly, the myth of the massive tax cuts that the Australian public is supposed to have received in this year of Our Lord 1987-88. There is, fourthly, the myth that the Government's policies are addressing the real issues-albeit, as the Government itself has conceded, only gradually-of the debt that Australians face to foreigners in particular. There is the myth that we have turned the corner-that corner which we have been turning so regularly, every time the Treasurer (Mr Keating) makes a speech-and in particular in that regard the myth that somehow or other the key to our future prosperity, namely, the future of business fixed investment, is about to be turned by the policies which this Government has applied to that problem. There is, above all, the myth that `she'll be right' internationally. I will conclude by saying that this Budget is the Budget of an already tired Government which has already dropped the ball. Let me take the first of the myths to which I have referred-the myth of the deficit. The Government has sought to persuade us or, at any rate, to bully us-which it is much better at-into believing that the deficit in this Budget is a mere $27m. It has done that by including in the outlays side of the Budget as a negative expenditure an amount of $1,000m which it estimates it will receive from the proceeds of sales of major-I repeat `major'-assets. Of course, for many years now the Budget Papers have contained items of minor asset sales. Indeed, if one goes back to the mini-Budget paper, the economic statement, of May this year, one will find on page 24 of the printed document, under the functional classification of `General Public Services', sales of surplus land, buildings and other minor assets estimated to yield this year $82.2m. That item is not included in the quite separate classification in that very same mini-budgetary paper of major asset sales in a program at that time of over $1 billion. As I say, we have had minor sales of assets for many years and their treatment has, I think, changed somewhat over more recent years. One would need more time than one has this afternoon to direct one's remarks to that matter. However, I noted that last week, in response to a question from Senator Short, the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), who is absent from the chamber at the moment, took the trouble to quote some material which no doubt had been prepared for him by one of his more assiduous research officers. He said: . . . in the 1980-81 Budget the then Treasurer-presumably with the approval of the then Secretary to the Treasury-presented asset sales. He went on to say: If one dug into the pages of Budget Statement No. 4- underline that; `Budget Statement No. 4'- one would find a small table and about a three-line reference to proposed sales of assets. In present values those proposed asset sales were over $300m. It does not seem to have occurred to the Minister when making that reference that he was implicitly admitting the position of the Opposition by pointing out-I have checked the reference and he is totally accurate-that this reference does occur in Statement No. 4. However, unfortunately for the case being argued by the Minister, Statement No. 4 was then and is today the statement relating to receipts, not expenditures. So, it is perfectly true that in 1980-81 the government of the day did indeed include $300m of asset sales on the receipts side of its Budget because that is where the proceeds from those asset sales were received. I hope that in future the Minister will not merely have these matters better researched but also think more carefully about the implications of the research that is handed to him. If one does abstract from this $1,000m of major asset sales-I repeat `major asset sales'-one is not contemplating a Budget deficit of $27m at all but a Budget deficit of $1,027m. However, the story does not end there because, as has been remarked by other speakers, the Budget also contains an estimate of receipts of $2,659m from the profits of the Reserve Bank of Australia this year, which is slightly higher than the equally large and equally unusual payment last year. But a very large proportion of those profits has been garnered by the Reserve Bank in the year past, and is expected to be garnered in the year ahead, from sales of foreign exchange held in the coffers of the Reserve Bank-Australia's total foreign exchange reserves-foreign exchange acquired some time ago, before the value of the Australian dollar crashed so catastrophically as a result of this Government's policies. Of course, unless the Government is contemplating a further fall in the value of the Australian dollar so that it can continue to have the Reserve Bank make these very large adventitious payments to it each year, one has simply to say that this kind of profit transfer from the Reserve Bank to the Consolidated Revenue Fund simply will not and cannot be sustained. Indeed, one does not have to believe me on this subject because the Reserve Bank has already pointed this out in its last annual report-that for 1986-87-which was published only last month and which has since been tabled. So, in that and other ways, we are not even looking at an underlying deficit, an on-going deficit, or what sometimes used to be called a structural deficit-a phrase which, I might remark in passing, this Government was very fond of some years ago-of $1,027m. When this Government first came to office it was fond of talking about the structural deficit in the Budget. We do not hear much about that phrase these days. However, the fact of the matter is that the underlying, ongoing or, if you like, structural deficit in the Budget is, therefore, not merely $1,027m, as I suggested before one version of it might be, but at least that amount plus whatever adventitious element there is about the Reserve Bank profit transfer today. One may put that figure where one wishes, but most independent judges would put it at at least $1 1/2 billion more-$1 1/2 billion of the $2 1/2 billion profit transfer would not be likely to continue to recur. In that case, we come-as I think Senator Chaney noted-to a figure for the real under- lying deficit in the Budget, not of a paltry $27m, but of $2,500m. So, let us have no more of this nonsense about the Budget being balanced, of the Treasurer going around the country beating his breast and telling everyone that he has done a fantastic job to bring the finances of this country into balance. He has done nothing of the kind and it is an empty, hollow and, I would even say, dishonest claim. Let us take the next myth-the myth of expenditure restraint. On page 2 of his Budget Speech, the Treasurer has claimed that he has made a 2.4 per cent real reduction in Commonwealth spending. I very much regret to say that that claim is repeated in Statement No. 1 of the Budget Papers. There was a time when those Budget Papers had a certain claim to professional respectability and were not influenced or overridden by the political will of the Treasurer of the day. However, it appears from internal evidence that we can no longer expect that from some aspects of these papers. Statement No. 1 in Budget Paper No. 1 repeats that false claim of a cut in real terms in outlays of 2.4 per cent. But again, as Senator Short brought out in a question to the Minister for Finance last week, the real truth is given not in Statement No. 1 but on page 61 of Statement No. 3, where, more honestly, it is revealed that, after allowance for the $1,000m of asset sales, the real reduction in outlays is not 2.4 per cent but 1.2 per cent. One might say nevertheless that the Government has succeeded in cutting its outlays by 1.2 per cent in real terms and that, after all, some would say, is some advance. However, I think the thing we always have to bear in mind with this Government is that what one sees is what one does not get. Here is another classic example of the same genre. We have a cut in payments to the States amounting to no less than 4.2 per cent in real terms. Having made that cut in that significant area of the Budget, we find when we examine the Government's own program-that is, expenditures by this Government on the Commonwealth's own programs; not the money it hands over to the States for their programs-that those payments have not been reduced one iota in real terms. They have risen very marginally, but let us say are unchanged in real terms. Where is the expenditure restraint? It is non-existent. As to the only programs that matter to these Ministers, namely their own, there has been no cut at all in spending. The truth is that the feature of this Budget is not on the expenditure side but on the receipts side. The Budget estimates tax receipts rising by 8.5 per cent. That compares with an estimated rate of inflation-these are the Government's own figures-of 7 per cent for the year ahead and an increase in average weekly earnings of around 6 per cent in the year ahead. Against that, tax receipts are rising by 8.5 per cent, so the taxation burden is rising, not falling. It is worth noting in passing that if these estimates should prove to be correct, taxation revenues this year will amount to 24.5 per cent of gross domestic product, compared with a figure of only 23.1 per cent in this Government's first Budget in 1983-84. The tax burden, expressed not merely in absolute terms but as a proportion of the total national product, has risen throughout the life of this present Government. It hardly needs to be said that it is also greater than the proportion in the base year for the trilogy, 1984-85-the trilogy of promises by the Prime Minister in the 1984 election. But there is no need to refer to that because no-one expects this Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to keep his promises anyway. Let us look, however, at where these tax receipts come from. Company taxes are estimated to be up by 14.3 per cent and the fringe benefits tax, which was in for only part of last year, up by 40 per cent. But receipts from individuals were up by 8.1 per cent. Where is this massive tax cut? The massive tax cut which the Treasurer and Prime Minister told us we were getting this year, and which the Budget Papers reveal is estimated to cost the revenue $4.480m in 1987-88, has resulted in no reduction whatever in the real burden of taxation. The reason is obvious to anybody who knows anything about our tax system-or so-called progressive tax system, our system of graduated and sharply rising rates cutting in at very low levels of income nowadays in a situation in which costs, that is to say, average incomes and prices, are rising sharply, and will continue to do so under the policies of this Government. We have had so-called bracket creep going on. To take the area of taxpayers whom I would have thought this Government would care most about, namely the PAYE taxpayers, the consequence is that they are estimated to pay 6.8 per cent more tax this year than they paid last year. Inflation is rising at 7 per cent, average weekly earnings at 6 per cent, and the real burden of taxation, depending on which indicator one chooses, is either unchanged or rising slightly. So much for the myth of the massive tax cuts. te Let us examine the myth that the Government is addressing our problems. The most important of those problems today is the level of Australia's international debts-debts owed by all Australians, governments, corporations and individuals. I remind the Senate of one or two figures in that regard. At 30 June last gross debts of Australians to foreigners amounted to $109 billion. Only four years ago, just after the present Government came to office, those debts were $35 billion. They have more than tripled in four years. Some people object to the use of gross debt figures and prefer to use net debt figures, which of course are arrived at by deducting from the ones I have just quoted any debts which foreigners owe to us, including those they owe to the Reserve Bank of Australia. Taking those figures, one finds that at 30 June last our net debts were only-I put that word in quotation marks-$83 billion. If one goes back four years to 30 June 1983, just after the present Government came to office, one finds that net debts at that time were only $21 billion. If one prefers the net debt basis, one finds that our net debts were not tripled but quadrupled. That is the mark of the performance of this Government in the four and a bit years it has been in office. It is that problem, and the serious problem of debt service to which it is leading, which this Government has run away from in this Budget. On page 58 of Budget Statement No. 2-perhaps this escaped the Treasurer's eagle eye or that of his assiduous office staff-it is specifically stated that: Australia's net external debt is likely to continue to rise faster than nominal GDP during 1987-88, and a further rise in the debt servicing ratio is expected. For some members of our audience terms such as debt servicing ratio might be something of a mouthful. Let me say what that means. Senator Crichton-Browne —Address yourself to journalists. Senator STONE —Yes, I thank the honourable senator. It is best thought of in terms of the burden which this Government's policies are bringing to bear for ourselves and our children in years to come. The debt servicing ratio is the proportion of our export income which has to be set aside first of all to meet the interest payments on our growing-still growing-external debts before we can spend a cent on buying imports. After all, the whole purpose of making exports is to be able to buy imports. We are continually depriving ourselves at an increasing rate of the capacity to buy imports with our export proceeds because we are continually having to set aside a greater and greater proportion of them to service our growing external debt. In the past there have been occasions when Australia has incurred external debts. Indeed, it has been traditional throughout most of our history to incur a deficit on current account in the balance of payments which can be financed either by borrowing or by asset sales. I digress for a moment to suggest to the creative accountants who are in the employ of the Government or who are in the Government ranks that if they wish to subtract the proceeds of major assets sales from the expenditure side of the Budget to arrive at a better looking figure for the deficit, they might start to think of applying the same technique to the balance of payments. If we sell off the Regent Hotel or the Sheraton Hotel in Brisbane, why do we not subtract the proceeds of those major assets sales from our import costs on our balance of payments and come up with a better looking deficit figure? Would that not make our external creditors happier? Of course it would not, because they would see through it in the same way as the public can see through the shonky accounting produced by this Government for the purposes of arriving at its fictitious deficit figure. In the past we have incurred current account deficits on the balance of payments and have paid for them either by borrowing or by sales of Australian assets, whether they be company shares or companies themselves or pieces of land or whatever. In passing, I would note that, although most of the debates on this terrible question of Australia's international indebtedness is about that very point, we should never lose sight of the fact that there are two ways of paying for a balance of payments deficit on current account. One is to borrow, which gives rise to indebtedness; the other is to sell Australia. Although until recently most of the financing of our current account deficits over the past few years has been effected in the former manner, that is by borrowing, there are increasing, and increasingly worrying, signs that more of our current account deficit is now being financed by selling Australia. Every weekend we pick up our newspapers and find that some new major asset has been sold to the Japanese, the New Zealanders or someone else. I do not blame any of these foreign investors and I am not in any way suggesting that they should not undertake these purchases. If our Government is so recreant to its responsibilities as to bring about the mess that we have in our balance of payments, which then has to be financed, and if, in the process of doing that, it allows our currency to fall so low in the stocks of the international world that someone can sell off his golf club membership in Tokyo and come here and buy a mansion on Sydney Harbour with the proceeds, then we only have ourselves to blame for re-electing a government that has produced that mess. Let me again return to my point that in the past we have had balance of payments deficits and I suppose there has grown up some sort of conventional wisdom that as long as those deficits did not exceed something like 2 1/2 per cent of gross domestic product, they were in some sense sustainable. Of course they were sustain- able anyway only if that process of borrowing, or selling bits of Australia, to finance that deficit resulted in Australia acquiring productive assets which, in due time, could produce the exports to service the debt incurred or the dividends on the assets which had changed hands if that were the case. The terrible thing about the past few years is that nothing of the kind has been happening. In the late 1960s when, for a very brief time, our balance of payments deficit rose to about 5 1/2 per cent or 6 per cent of gross domestic product, we were having the greatest mining boom in Australia's history. We were building the great iron ore mines of Western Australia, the bauxite and alumina mines and smelter facilities. We were doing something at that time with the funds that we were borrowing or the proceeds of the assets we were otherwise disposing of to foreigners. Even in that much criticised time of policy-and I criticised it to some extent-during the so-called resources investment boom, or resources boom as it was misleadingly called, of the late 1970s and early 1980s, with all the mistakes of that time, and there certainly were mistakes, a great deal of productive investment was put in place. To a large degree the great coal mines of Queensland were built at that time. Today Australia is the greatest single coal exporter in the world. At that time we produced the productive facilities to bring this about. Where would our balance of payments be today-God knows, it is in bad enough shape-without the coal exports which are the product of the investment at that time? Senator Walsh has not had the courtesy to listen to these remarks but, as he said the other day, it is true that in the late 1970s and early 1980s our balance of payments deficit rose to about 6 per cent of GDP. But we were doing something with it. We were not engaging in as much or as efficient productive investment as we should have been, but we were doing a great deal and today we are benefiting from the proceeds of having done so. The really great criticism of the present Government in that regard is that in the past four years we have been like locusts eating the seed corn. We have simply been borrowing in order to maintain a standard of living in this country which, at our present levels of productivity-I emphasise that phrase because it is fundamental to the whole debate-we cannot sustain. We have been borrowing to maintain a standard of living; borrowing to consume, not to invest. If anyone wants proof of that he should look at the figures today for private business investment. These figures are, in total terms, only slightly higher today than the trough into which they fell during the 1982-83 recession which was brought on by the second wage explosion in 1981-82. Following that wage explosion the bottom fell out of a great many things in this country, including particularly the jobs of the members of the trade unions which had brought it about. The bottom did not fall out of the jobs of the trade union bosses, I should point out, but their members. At that time we saw private business investment sink and it has never significantly recovered. Taken as a whole, private business investment today is slightly above the trough which it reached at that time. In real terms, after adjustment for inflation, investment in plant and equipment is still below the level it reached at that time. Again, that is a mark of the achievement of this Government and the extent to which it has brought the Australian economy to a position where it is now turning the corner. In the concluding minutes of these remarks I do not have time to pick up the fascinating comments by the Minister for Finance in Western Australia at the weekend whilst addressing the Society of Labor Lawyers. To my mind, that in itself is a term of total contradiction-to talk about people being lawyers and at the same time having political affiliations. But that is by the way. As has been reported-and perhaps it was because he was unaware that the Press was present-the Minister for Finance has done the nation a signal service by these remarks. I will not go out of my way to criticise him for them. On the contrary, I will go out of my way to congratulate and praise him for the contribution to national debate which he, and he alone, out of all the Ministers in this Government, has actually made. In moving the amendment to this motion, Senator Chaney said that the most important thing that Australians face today is the need to be told the truth. That is the sense in which this Government is failing us most. It is also failing us in respect of actual policies but above all it is failing us in its failure to tell us the truth. In that respect I take this opportunity to say to Senator Walsh through you, Mr President-I regret that he is not here to hear me say it-that I admire what he did in Perth at the weekend. I appreciate what he said very much because he is entirely correct. This Government has squibbed it in the Budget; it has simply not addressed the issues of the size of big government in Canberra and the height of taxes to which the size of that Government in Canberra leads. The words Senator Walsh used or is reported to have used-he has not denied them-were that this Budget had been oversold and that it reflected a degree of complacency on the part of the Government which is simply not in any way attuned to the magnitude of the problems our country faces. The PRESIDENT —Before I call Senator Jenkins, I remind honourable senators that this is her maiden speech and I ask that the usual courtesies be extended to her. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(4.38) —I rise to address the Senate for the first time as an Australian Democrat senator for Western Australia with a mingled sense of pride and humility. It is a great honour to be here and I thank the President and fellow senators for their courtesy and, in particular, the staff of Parliament House, at all levels, for their unfailing helpfulness. I also congratulate the other new senators on the content and delivery of their maiden speeches in this place. I am humbled by the awareness of the duties and responsibilities which lie ahead of me and I am proud to have been chosen by the Australian Democrats and the people of Western Australia to represent them. In particular, I thank my family, especially my husband Brian and my six children and step-children, Nicole, Sue, Evan, Jemma, Fraser and Enoch, and the friends and supporters who stood by me through the gruelling process which is democracy. I had previously stood for public office as an Australian Democrat candidate four times-that is, for each parliamentary House for which I am eligible to stand. On each of those occasions I stood in what must be acknowledged to have been an unwinnable position. Why did I do this as a person with a rewarding professional career in technical and further education (TAFE), as a head of department at the Perth Technical College, as a person with a happy family life? What is it that time after time drives Australian Democrats to contest seats which are virtually unwinnable? I believe that the answer to that question is motivation and a desire for social justice. There are many concerns which simply cannot be ignored, and I am proud to be one of the army of Australian Democrats who have stood up and been counted in elections in recent years in a spirit of dogged determination. In my case, I arrived in Australia as an immigrant in 1969 during the later stages of the Vietnam war, and I brought with me a commitment to peace which had led me to be part of the great swell of anti-war and anti-nuclear feeling which swept Europe and Britain at that time. My first political act in my new country was to protest at the Australian involvement in that terrible war in Vietnam, and I continue to oppose Australia's involvement in the global nuclear strategy of a foreign power-any foreign power. Western Australia is particularly abused by the positioning of foreign bases and by being repeatedly used as a berth for nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed ships of another nation and for the rest and recreation of the very large numbers of their service personnel. There are few seekers of peace who are not also passionately concerned for the environment. I would like to quote Don Chipp, although many others have said it. He said that there is no point in saving the world if the world you are saving is not worth saving. Coming from Western Australia, I have a particular set of issues which are my concern. I have given an undertaking to the Australian Conservation Foundation of Western Australia that I shall work closely with it on its conservation agenda. I refer to the mining of uranium in Rudall River National Park, the issue of woodchipping, which includes the conditions of licence and the role of the Australian Heritage Commission, and Shark Bay and the radioactive mineral sands dispute in the south-west of Western Australia. As the solitary Democrat elected in Western Australia, I feel obliged to become involved in some of the issues where there is no parliamentarian at the State level who is prepared to stand alongside and speak up for concerned citizens. One such issue is the proposed new brickworks to be sited at Midland in the Swan Valley. Another is the proposed subdivision and development of 19 hectares of natural bushland still miraculously surviving within the boundaries of metropolitan Perth. Other current concerns of Western Australian citizens are the sodium cyanide plant to be sited at Kwinana just south of Perth, a polychlorinated byphenyl and toxic waste incinerator and even a nuclear waste disposal facility, destined perhaps for the Kalgoorlie area, and the synthetic rutile plant now operating at Geraldton, with devastating effects on the lungs of residents. I could go on, but observing the convention of not being overcontroversial in this my maiden speech, I shall just add that in Western Australia the connection between millionaire developers, the Western Australian Development Corporation and the State Government is indeed wondrous to behold. Unfortunately, it is in the nature of governments and official experts to give false assurances to people concerned about their environment and their futures. Some four or five years ago, as a Western Australian State election candidate I participated in a multi-party symposium on multicultural affairs at the North Perth Town Hall. The quietest, most polite segment of the 500-strong audience was a group of migrants who had been sent to work at Wittenoom in the 1950s and 1960s and who had become afflicted with asbestosis. After the meeting, these tragic figures formed a circle around me and implored me to seek some official recognition of their plight. They had accepted that justice would be denied them until after their death. They had no reasonable hope of compensation for themselves. They were begging that the truth of their work-caused disability might simply be recognised and that some reparation might be extended to their families. These patient men with grey skin are etched indelibly on my memory. They had exhausted every avenue of communication with the Government and the Opposition of the time. They had been rejected and ignored by the politicians elected and paid to represent them. Successive governments were guilty, alongside the employing asbestos company, in dismissing medical advice which should have spared those workers their agonising fate. Had honourable senators been there to see the expressions of pain and despair on the faces of those asbestosis sufferers, they would understand why the Democrats have maintained the principle of compassion and struggled for 10 years to give Australians a new kind of political party. We are not, as some have said, a temporary bloc of disaffected drop-outs from one or other of the bigger parties. Reason and compassion demand that at least some paid representatives turn their back on the blind forces of big capital and big unions and, as Senator Haines mentioned a short while ago, big corporate welfare. It appears that it is left to the Australian Democrats to speak up for disfranchised minorities. In 1985, with my then colleague, Sue Paull, I was joint co-ordinator of a citizens' initiative action group, called the Castle Keepers. We waged a successful campaign to save the 1910 Perth Technical School building from demolition. In this campaign-a strictly one-issue campaign-supported by people of all political persuasions, ages and backgrounds, there was continuing evidence of backroom deals and improper procedures involving would be developers and government-backed organisations. This was not followed up by us. Our sole aim was to preserve the building for future generations of Western Australians. However, I was delighted to read in yesterday's edition of the Perth Sunday Times that a plan has been mooted to give members of the police force a three-month amnesty if evidence is given which leads to the charging and conviction of a corrupt colleague. How far could we extend this principle-to city and shire councils, to government corporations, perhaps to the Government itself? My background is that I am a linguist and, since first living in Perth, in 1971, I have had close association both professionally and personally with non-English-speaking migrants. In 1981, as senior lecturer in languages at the Perth Technical College, I was responsible for setting up the first interpreter courses in Western Australia. I have also had considerable input into the national languages policy at State and Federal level. I therefore listened with pleasure to His Excellency the Governor-General speaking in this place when he stated: The National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia . . . will give definition, direction and drive to the policy of multiculturalism. At the same time the Government's access and equity strategy will help ensure that Government services and programs are available fairly to all Australians. His Excellency also stated that the Government is committed to a national policy on languages `which aims to ensure that all Australians master English, our common tongue'. It is my regret that this positive statement comes comes just a year after the Government dismantled the English as a second language program in government schools, passing the responsibility for this essential matter to the States, not all of which have picked up this responsibility-and Western Australia is one which has not. These cuts in funding for the schools' English as a second language program are both senselessly cruel and a false economy, as a glimpse backward can reveal. Many people who came to Australia in the late 1940s and early 1950s during the period of heavy post-war immigration arrived here as children, speaking only their mother tongues. As this was the period of assimilation and integration, they were immediately placed in the classroom with native English speakers, and they just had to make the best of it. Cio che questi bambini hanno sentito in classe sarebbe stato esattamente quello che questa frase in Italiano rappresenta per molte persone che mi stanno ascoltando al momento. E peggio ancora, perche classi in Inglese come Seconda Lingua erano quasi inesistenti nelle scuole allora, molti di questi bambini sfortunamente erano destinati a diventare semi-analfabeti in entrambi le due lingue. These children did not have the advantage, which some honourable senators may now need, of a translation. I repeat in English what I have just said in Italian: What these children heard in the classroom would have sounded just like what this sentence in Italian sounds to a lot of the people who are listening to me right now. And what's worse, because English as a Second Language classes were virtually non-existent in schools at that time, sadly a lot of these children were destined to become adults who were semi-literate in two languages. That is what I said in Italian. We must not reproduce that tragedy. English as a second language classes must be maintained in our schools, whether through the agents of Federal or State governments. I worked in TAFE from 1972 until I was required to resign in order to stand as a candidate in the recent election-and that is another area that requires some examination. The funding for TAFE has been cut dramatically over the past few years. At the same time, the student demand for TAFE has risen equally dramatically. Where are the second chance people to go if their local technical college can no longer accommodate them? Short term skills training in the form of traineeships and other similar courses for those who have been unemployed for the requisite amount of time cannot replace the courses which must be curtailed because of cuts in TAFE funding. A lot of what we call education cannot slot readily into the category of employment or training. Courses in skills for the unemployed are necessary, but it must be realised that people who are `educated' in the real sense of the word make better employees and can be trained in skills more effectively. As I said, I came to Australia as an immigrant, albeit an English-speaking one, and I am justly proud that this is a democracy and that all citizens have the opportunity to be educated, to be healthy and to take part in the political life of the country by voting, by joining or forming political groups and parties, by standing for public office and even by being able to be elected to this place without benefit of personal fortune, aristocratic parents or political influence. `All power is a trust', said Benjamin Disraeli, `from the people and for the people'. It is a political cliche that we have the best voting system in the world-the Hare-Clark system in Tasmania and the modified Hare-Clark system under which the Senate and the upper Houses in South Australia and New South Wales are elected. However, it is a pity that we still have governments in lower Houses elected by unrepresentative methods of single member seats. In my own State of Western Australia, we Democrats have campaigned for many years to remove a serious malapportionment in the State's upper House, and I can say with great pride and pleasure that the next State election in Western Australia will see the introduction of a form of proportional representation to the election of the Legislative Council, when the State will be divided into six multi-member electorates. I believe that the Australian Capital Territory would be well advised to select such a democratic system of electing its members when it is self-governing. Canberra itself has four discrete areas which, since the city planners sensibly followed natural boundaries, could provide four naturally distinct multi-member electorates. Since 1949 the Senate has been elected by a system of proportional representation treating each State as a single multi-member electorate. This has had the effect of allowing into the Senate representatives of minority parties and Independents. It was made clear to us new senators during our orientation that it is because of the present composition of the Senate that it is now a genuine House of review. We were told to expect a higher level of debate than in the other place, and a concentration on the issues at hand rather than personal abuse. I am sure that, for the most part, that is true, and that it was not a Senate Whip to whom Don Chipp referred during his book launch yesterday when he described how one Whip used to tell newcomers to the Parliament: Now that you are here you can forget all the-- `rubbish' is my euphemism for what Don actually said-- . . . you talked during your election campaign, about saving the world and helping mankind. Now that you're here, you will think, do, and most importantly, vote, as the Party tells you. I am sure that none of my new colleagues were told that and that this chamber will remain a House which truly represents States' interests. However, having visited the new Parliament House, I am disturbed to see the concept of the Executive being set apart from the House of Representatives and the Senate. As stated by Perth journalist Peter Rees in the Western Mail two weeks ago: The frightening symbolism of this is that the new Houses of Parliament will be simply an adjunct to executive government. My very supportive running mate in the recent election, who was also my predecessor in this place as Western Australian Democrat senator, Jack Evans, suggested in an adjournment debate that democracy can function, and be expected to function, only if there is an educated electorate. Australian Democrats Leader, Janine Haines, made a similar observation during the recent election campaign, and stated that this means teaching young people how the system works, and teaching it in such a way that they are interested in what they are learning, so that they see how vitally important politics is to every aspect of their lives. If democracy is to survive in Australia, then it must involve the people, not repel them. The people must be given the option of voting meaningfully for the party of their choice from a range of parties and individual candidates who represent the whole range of opinion in the electorate and in both Houses of Parliament-and they must know what they are doing. This, of course, demands of the government of the day a conscious policy of enlightenment. It demands also of the media in Australia that owners and editors raise their eyes from the account sheet and accept some measure of responsibility for the political process which they so freely criticise. Twenty years ago Don Chipp wrote that true democracy cannot survive without a free Press and electronic media, and he expressed unease about the concentration of Australian media ownership even then. He wrote: It is safe to assume that Parliament in present circumstances is little protection for peoples' rights. The media seem to have given up hope of improving Parliament. The electorate is becoming inactive and less informed. . . . It is perhaps surprising that Don Chipp expected the media to do any such thing as improve parliament, but he remembers a time when this was the case. The Australian Democrats have been in existence for 10 years-10 years of urging people to become vocal, critical and distrustful of the official experts. We have urged people to become involved, on the one hand, to resist the officially sanctioned monstrosities of so-called development and, on the other hand, to be staunch in the defence of our own civil liberties; to resist, on the one hand, the ugly racism which is the darker side of our multi-racial nation and, on the other, the Orwellian computerised society in which one's number becomes one's name. I am proud to be here in this place as an Australian Democrats senator in this distinguished company, and I am proud and humble to be able to give what service I can to my State and my country. The PRESIDENT —Order! Before I call Senator McGauran, I remind honourable senators that this is his maiden speech. I would ask that the usual courtesies be extended to him. Senator McGAURAN(Victoria)(4.58) —Mr President, in commencing my remarks I wish to extend my congratulations to you on your re-election to your distinguished office. As I rise to speak for the first time in this House I am conscious of the fact that I am the youngest senator in the chamber. It is appropriate then that I acknowledge the youngest senator ever to have been elected to this House, the Hon. Hattil Spencer Foll, elected to the Senate for Queensland in 1917 at the age of 27 years. Prior to taking up his commitment to public life, the honourable senator was distinguished by the military service he gave his country during the Great War. He served in one of Australia's most historic and well-remembered encounters: the Gallipoli landing of 25 April 1915. The Hon. Hattil Spencer Foll brought to public life not only the vision and vigour of youth but also a philosophy of courage and will for a country then fighting for its beliefs and freedoms. It was at this time that a foundation stone for traditional Australia was truly laid. Today, as we prepare to enter our bicentennial year, it is a time to reflect on and reaffirm our belief in traditional Australia and in the wisdom of past Australians: the Aborigines, the convicts, the early settlers and, more recently, the immigrants of the post-war period. All these men and women have made us a country lucky in history and a people strong in will, with a fine spirit of mateship. If Australians should ever doubt the respect in which they are held in the world today, let them remember that in the east of France, in the quiet township of Amiens, one can enter a quiet and picturesque chapel dedicated to the Australian diggers who so gallantly defended their beliefs and fought for freedom not just for themselves but for all people in all places. It would be a weakness if in the bicentennial year we do not stop to reflect on our traditional beliefs and be willing to defend them. Today, whether we live in city or country, we can all personally relate to the hardships of our pioneering ancestors. The effects on our natural environment of bushfires, drought and floods, the effects of economic hardship and the effects of the evil of war are all forces that threatened not only the economic survival but the very lives of so many Australians and their families. We do not have to look too far back in time to know the effects of these forces on the Australian character. I remind my fellow senators of the impact of the Ash Wednesday bushfires of 1983 upon the people of Victoria. It is those same harsh realities faced by past and present Australians that have allowed the qualities I have mentioned to be passed on through the generations to this moment in time. This should be the pride of our past and the foundation of our future. I stand for traditional Australia and its belief in the family structure as a source of strength to a society which is presently sorely tested by an array of social pressures. I stand for an Australia which accepts the recognition in law and policy of the status of marriage and its preferred treatment. I stand for an Australia that wishes to reassert its long-held belief in small business and the farmer as the essence of free enterprise, which itself is the primary contributor to our economic welfare. Finally, I stand for traditional Australia's belief in the working man and woman's dignity of contribution to our economic welfare, with recognition in law and policy of their individual rights to work, fair payment and freedom of association. It is the family and small business, the working man and woman and the farmer, who are the real contributors to Australia. It is they who have been forgotten in this time of economic decline and economic change. In addition, I reject the philosophy espoused by so many now in public office and best exemplified by Professor Manning Clark, who, when speaking of the late Justice Lionel Murphy, said: . . . there was a man in Australia who believed passionately that the morality of Judaeo Christianity had ceased to be relevant. I see Lionel Murphy as a man who in that context strove to end the domination of God over human beings . . . I say again that I not only reject this view but stand against it. I believe that at the heart of public service there resides a deeper sense of social responsibility than that statement lays claim to. It is, then, for all those reasons that I take my position in the Senate with great honour. I recognise the true role of the Senate to be that of a House of review with the aim to protect the rights of States-rights that are enshrined in our Federal Constitution and which represent not an echo of a past age but which continue to provide the basis of a decentralised and responsive political and economic system. Again, our past and its legacy are under siege. The Constitution is too often under attack by those who seek change for in vogue reasons or, more deviously still, to advance centralist objectives. But it is this Constitution that I respect, that I will defend and that I am committed to uphold. It is worthy to reflect that the wheels are now in motion to introduce major changes to our Constitution in the bicentennial year, the vehicle being the Constitutional Commission. I stand by the powers of the Senate to review, pass or reject Supply or any such similar appropriation Bill as outlined in the context of section 53 of the Constitution. It is an authority given to the Senate in the Constitution under the democratic principle that a second House is needed to check, balance and review the conduct of the executive arm of government. This is common and fundamental to the past and continuing ideal of our Australian democratic system of government. I oppose such tired yet persistent attempts to reduce the important and traditional role of the Senate so clearly set down by our forefathers. It is true that we live in a changing, turbulent period which has seen some change in our social values and a decline in our economic welfare. It is a time when all of us have questioned the future and asked what kind of Australia lies ahead. It was from this question of uncertainty as to our future that I received a clear and potent message as I travelled and campaigned in many parts of the great State of Victoria. This message of frustration and anger at the lack of leadership in public life emanated from the real contributors to Australia-the working man and woman, small business and the rural community. This class of Australians has in common the carrying of the greatest part of the burden of our economic ills. They are the first and most directly affected by high taxes, high inflation, high unemployment and high interest rates. It saddens me greatly that the entrepreneurial spirit that these people have generated might be lost if the Government is not determined in its resolve to lift the economic burdens it has placed upon these Australians. These Australians settled and built this tough continent with little more than a dream before them and determined hearts. Unless we rekindle that spirit-unless governments allow the great potential of all Australians to be unleashed, and unless they offer a greater recognition of their role-we can expect no more than the development of a corporate state led by central government control, corporate power and super-unions which will at best preside over a selective recovery for this nation. Of the major economic issues facing Australia, I believe that the most important concerns this country's public indebtedness. The gross internal and external public sector debt now approaches $113 billion. This debt has a significant effect on all our economic indicators and on our economic climate. It is a debt based solely on the philosophy of big Government. It is a debt serviced by ever-increasing taxes and it is a major cause of high interest rates and high inflation. This Government's Budget has done nothing to reduce the existing level of public indebtedness. Its inclusion of one-off asset sales and windfall profits in calculating its deficit for the year 1987-88 does not provide the basis for a sustainable reduction of the public sector debt; nor does the Government's Budget lift the burden of tax from Australians, who will be paying an extra $3 billion into the Government's coffers in the course of the coming year. Why should a person work hard to earn an extra few dollars if those dollars are grabbed by the Government in taxes? What incentive is there for enterprise and invention if that reward and risk is lost in interest payments? Again, there is nothing in this Government's Budget to lift private investment and to encourage restructuring beyond the sagging levels of the last financial year. What reason is there for families to save for the future if inflation, still unacceptably high relative to that of our trading partners, erodes that sacrifice and makes the search for security increasingly elusive? Failure by governments to meet the test and reduce the size of government debt will mean an Australia lurching from crisis to crisis and gradually falling further behind on the scale of international economic success. One of the most disturbing factors of this massive debt is that today's generation is leaving the expense to future generations. We must never let short term political expediency allow us to impose a lasting debt on future generations. For their sake and for the sake of their future nation, governments must exercise self-discipline. This self-discipline by Parliament must be answered with a sense of leadership from all who serve. What is called for by the electorate is leadership-leadership which replaces political opportunism with integrity, leadership which replaces political careerism with courage and will, leadership which does not discard old loyalties for new favours, and leadership which will inspire the young and quicken their heartfelt dreams. The final issue I wish to touch on in this my first speech to the Senate is that of organised crime in this country. Just as we have the responsibility to meet the economic challenges facing this Parliament in terms of its legacy to future generations and the need for leadership, so too do we have the utmost responsibility to promote leadership and to investigate and take measures to prevent the growth and perpetuation of crime in our society. Organised crime erodes the basic harmony and foundation of our lives. It undermines the public's confidence in its representative institutions and destroys the future of so many of our young Australians. I believe the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, despite its suspiciously premature termination by this Government, highlights evidence of a quite extraordinary network of organised crime in Australia that has not yet been subject to the most vigorous pursuit by every possible means. I acknowledge the fine work by the Costigan Commission in bringing such seedy ways to public notice. The problem of attacking organised crime presents legitimate concerns to those of us who are defenders of civil liberties. Yet it must be remembered that the civil liberties of Australians are affected by the directions of the crime bosses. Both the United States of America and Italy have realised that a drastic problem demands a drastic solution, and both have taken legislative and common law measures to preserve the credibility and the sanctity of their social, economic and political systems. The United States Government has taken extraordinary steps in electronic surveillance in order to untangle the web of serious crime. Under the La Torre law, the Italian Government has assumed the urgent yet responsible task of vigorously investigating the mafiosi. With evidence mounting daily that Australia is being absorbed into the international crime networks, we need to avoid acting on the defensive and instead be prepared to seize the initiative. In conclusion, as we prepare to enter our bicentennial year, I have a great hope that the traditions established by past Australians have given the generation which serves in this Parliament a firm foundation upon which we might seek to resolve the serious economic and social problems before us. I have the firmest conviction that the National Party of Australia has a continuing and major contribution to make to the growing demand by Australians for new visions and fresh leadership and to take us to new possibilities of economic reform, it has been the history of our Party to speak for those who have no voice, to remember those who are forgotten and to respond to the aspirations of all Australians seeking a better life in a better country. We have never forsaken this history, and we dare not. I seek to give full service to these ideals in my term in the Senate. The PRESIDENT —Order! Before I call Senator Coulter, I remind honourable senators that this will be his maiden speech. I ask that the usual courtesies be also extended to him. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(5.13) —Mr President, thank you for this opportunity to address the Senate for the first time, and I thank the Senate for the courtesy being extended to me. I am aware that what I am about to say could have been said by a number of Australians. But I am the one elected and thus I bear the responsibility to speak their words. I am very conscious that over 65,000 people in South Australia, in voting, expressed a preference that the viewpoint I am about to put be heard in this Parliament. Therefore, rather than reflect on the honour being done me as a person, I reflect more on the recognition of the validity and importance of these views and the responsibility I bear in being their conduit. I thank the Australian Democrats in South Australia for the support they have given me and also my family, particularly my wife, Phyllis, and my son, Peter. The Governor-General, in presenting the Government's program for the Thirty-fifth Parliament, said that the Government seeks to build `a more competitive and . . . a more compassionate Australian society'. Further on, under the heading `Education and Training', we were told that we must ensure `that we build an economy capable of prospering in an increasingly competitive world'. Taking these statements together, honourable senators will notice two things. Firstly, they present a self-fulfilling prediction. We must become more competitive. Presumably, most advanced Western economies are pursuing the same goal. Therefore, we must more rigidly condition, program or adapt-take your pick of which word you like-our young people to an increasingly competitive world. But this conditioning of the next generation is what is making the world more competitive. We are locking ourselves, our children and the following generation into a more cut-throat, competitive, devil take the hindmost society, and the Government presents that future to us as though it is inevitable-as though there is no other option. I believe, and the Australian Democrats believe, that there are other and better options. Secondly, greater competitiveness and a more compassionate society are incompatible objectives. Even assuming for the moment that growth of gross national product means more material goodies to be shared around-something to which I shall return in more detail in a moment-when growth is only a few per cent per year competition is near enough to a zero sum game. More intense competition produces a widening gulf between winners and losers. This is indeed what we have seen in recent years. Between 1984 and 1986, under a Labor government, the number of Australians possessing more than $50m increased from 16 to 56, and their average wealth to $125m each. Meanwhile, the proportion of children living in poverty grew until it reached just over 20 per cent of the child population, and in absolute numbers almost 750,000. Several myths surround this notion of material competitiveness being good, or at least sufficiently good that it should be a major guiding principle for government. It is said, for instance, that the exercise of competitive greed, guided by the invisible hand of the market, in some way serves the common good. There is no a priori reason why the exercise of competitive greed should serve the common good and there is abundant evidence that, in practice, it does not. Moreover, the notion of a balanced, self-correcting market is a mathematical absurdity. If ever a market got to such a state it would be at its most unstable. And again in practice what do we see? We see markets-if they can still be called markets-becoming stabilised when only one or a few players remain and gain control and when their main effort is directed towards minimising competition, often excluding it altogether. The terms `economic growth', `market', `market forces', `economic competitiveness' and `competition' should become pejoratives. Further promotion of the economic model of which these terms are the stock in trade is not compatible with a more compassionate society. Competition for material gain, both within and between nations, generates conflict, not compassion. The companion of compassion is co-operation, not competition. The Australian Democrats seek a more co-operative and compassionate society. Competition for material gain has been and is an integral part of the economic model adopted and pursued by governments of both major parties. The principal goal toward which this model is directed is growth of gross national product. Indeed, so pervasive has this model become that growth of gross national product has become not just an economic goal but the national goal. The Australian Democrats adopted in 1977 a policy which rejected the growth model and supported a model variously known as a sustainable economy or a steady state economy. This is also the model espoused by the conservation movement. Its support by the Australian Democrats provided one of the main reasons I joined the Party I now represent. The growth economy locks people into an increasingly less human and humane society, a characteristic recognised by the economist Keynes. Writing in 1930, Keynes contemplated a day when growth would have made everyone rich. Then he said that we shall `once more value ends above means and prefer the good to the useful': He continued: But beware, the time for all this is not yet. For at least another 100 years we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight. That is a view rejected by the Australian Democrats for there are a number of other fundamental flaws in the growth model. It is to those that I now wish to turn. Gross national product is the dollar value of all goods and services made in a country in a year. It roughly parallels consumption. Making gross national products grow means making the dollar value of all goods and services consumed each year more than the dollar value of goods and services consumed in previous years after allowing for inflation. As growth is measured as a percentage, the growth being attempted is exponential. These are just some of the flaws in the growth model. Firstly, the growth paradigm assumes infinite wants and infinite technological innovation to produce more and more people and goods-world without end. It assumes that this is not only possible but also desirable. Both assumptions can be shown to be false. Resources are not infinite, not least the capacity of the environment to cope with the damage which the growing economy generates. Human activity is now changing the composition of the global atmosphere faster than at any time in the earth's long history and by a multitude of processes intimately woven throughout our industrial economy. The level of carbon dioxide is increasing by half a per cent per annum, nitrous oxide by 0.6 per cent per annum, methane by 1.1 per cent per annum and freons 11 and 12 by 5 per cent and 7 per cent per annum. Broadly, what we are doing is returning the atmosphere toward the composition it had before living things crawled out of the sea and were able to survive on dry land. Attempts to address these emerging problems are running into strong opposition from the protagonists of further growth. Nor is continuing growth desired. If it were, it would not be necessary to spend increasing amounts on promotional advertising. It is obscene that we in Australia spend between $4 billion and $10 billion each year promoting greater material consumption, while thousands of our fellow passengers on spaceship earth suffer and die for the want of the use of some of these same resources. Several populations have been repeatedly polled over the years as technical improvements increased output. The question `Would you rather take increased productive capacity as increased wages or increased leisure?' has been asked each time. Recent surveys in Denmark showed that well over half the population preferred increased leisure. This may have stopped economic growth if it had been allowed. But the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development advised the Danish Government that to get growth going again it should increase inequity in Denmark-a very precise example of greater weight being given to an economic index than to the wishes of people, and a further example of the close link between the conservative society and social justice and equity. The second flaw in the growth model involves its peculiar system of accounting. Gross national product counts cost as benefits. The American economist Herman Daly puts this succinctly: We take the real costs of increasing gross national product as measured by the defensive expenditures incurred to protect ourselves from the unwanted side effects of production and add these expenditures to gross national product rather than subtract them. We count the real costs as benefits-this is hypergrowthmania. Since the net benefit of growth can never be negative in this Alice-in-Wonderland accounting system, the rule becomes `grow forever', or at least until it kills you-and then count your funeral expenses as further growth. This is terminal hypergrowthmania. Is the water table falling? Dig deeper wells, build bigger pumps, and up goes gross national product! Mines depleted? Build more expensive refineries to process lower grade ores, and up goes gross national product! Soil depleted? Produce more fertiliser, et cetera, et cetera. As we press against the carrying capacity of our physical environment, these `extra effort' and defensive expenditures (which are really costs masquerading as benefits) loom larger and larger. This creates the illusion of becoming better off when in actuality we are becoming worse off. We may already have passed the point were the marginal cost of growth exceeds the marginal benefit. How many of us have had the strong feeling, when told that the economy has grown by X per cent, that we are really no better off? Thirdly, the growth model measures the throughput rather than the stock. In our personal lives we do not measure our well-being by how quickly we can spend our assets, nor do we equate it with the size of the effort required to maintain our physical lifestyle. Indeed, we quite sensibly seek to minimise the rate at which assets are consumed and effort expended. Why should we adopt the exactly opposite view when we contemplate the welfare of the nation? Consider for a moment a stock of physical goods-houses, cars, refrigerators-being maintained in a steady state, that is, a constant number, by maintenance throughput. That this maintenance throughput is a cost is clearly seen by looking at each end of the pipeline. Inputs necessitate depletion. Outputs necessitate pollution. Furthermore, the maintenance of the stock requires human labour, the sacrifice of leisure to production. To increase throughput for its own sake makes no sense. Seen in this light, gross national product becomes a largely irrelevant number, something to be minimised for a given stock and not maximised. A fourth flaw in the growth model is that it is inconsistent with one of the most fundamental laws of physics-the second law of thermodynamics. For present purposes this may be read as the law of diminishing returns. Each increment of growth costs more than the last. Of course, in the fairy tale system of national accounting where costs are counted as benefits, the signals that the second law gives to stop are misread as encouragement to attempt to grow even more. I cite an example. There are many services, such as unpolluted air, which nature provides free. Because these services do not cost anything, they are not counted towards the gross national product. However, as these services are destroyed and we must pay dollars for their replacement, these dollars are counted as an addition to gross national product. The role of women as mothers is a very important-perhaps the most important-role in our society, the nurturing of the next generation. Because women are not paid, their work is not counted towards gross national product. As we force more women into the work force and women are forced to pay for their nurturing role to be taken over by others, that amount of money is counted as an addition to gross national product. It should be asked whether we as a society are better off. There is no a priori reason, nor any support whatsoever from science, why growth of gross national product should be accepted as a national goal. The growth model hangs in an intellectual vacuum unconnected with anything save its own corollaries. Arguments about growth conducted within the growth paradigm are tautological. A number of studies show that, as a measure of human welfare, gross national product is largely meaningless and frequently misleading. For example, in the late 1970s Morris Morris, an American sociologist, compared countries using an objective measure consisting of equal parts of infant mortality, literacy and longevity scaled from one to 100. In 1977 Saudi Arabia had a per capita gross national product of $3,529, while Sri Lanka had a per capita GNP of only $179. But on the quality of life index Saudi Arabia scored only 28 while Sri Lanka scored 82. The Australian Democrats seek to put before the Australian people a better model: a sustainable or steady state economy. A sustainable economy is one in which the total stock of population and physical wealth is maintained at some desired level with a minimum throughput of both human and material resources. It is this minimum which must be sustainable in the long term. This steady state contrasts fundamentally with the growth mania model. The steady state seeks to maintain some generally desirable level of material welfare while using up the least resources. The growth model simply seeks to consume resources as fast as possible and mistakenly equates the speed of consumption with welfare. The demands of the growth economy and the empty promise of trickle-down, to which Senator Haines referred earlier, have allowed us to put off facing the real question of equity: the sharing of stock, not just a fraction of the throughput. The adoption of this steady state will force us to stop begging the question of equity. The steady state will involve a slower flow of both human and material resources through the economy, less depletion, less labour required for maintenance, more leisure, less waste in the economy, less pollution, more durable longer life goods and human activity directed towards more durable ends. Finally, but most importantly, it will leave for our children and our children's children a living, interesting, self-sustaining environment which is an essential element in a fully human heritage. Debate (on motion by Senator Tate) ad-journed. Debate resumed from 18 September, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Senator Puplick had moved by way of amendment: Leave out all words after ``That'', insert: ``, whereas: (a) while the Senate has received a report of a committee on the proposed identity card, the committee did not have the benefit of examining the Government's proposed legislation, as its reference was limited to consideration of the concept and not the Bill; (b) further, the committee was a joint select committee and not a Senate committee; (c) the Bill presented by the Government is particularly complex, being both very technical and lengthy and thus requiring close scrutiny; (d) recent public statements made by several Ministers and the Government's responses to the relevant Scrutiny of Bills Committee report have revealed the necessity to make amendments to the legislation; (e) the Minister responsible for the legislation, Senator Ryan, has, since the election, been reported as acknowledging the need to consult with civil liberties organisations on measures to strengthen privacy safeguards; (f) one of the Government's responses to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee report was unsatisfactory and requires further consideration; (g) the Government stressed the significance of the Bill in seeking the recent double dissolution and accordingly the legislation should be the subject of thorough and careful examination by the Senate through a select committee; and (h) there have arisen changed circumstances since the matter was last considered by the Senate, and in particular: (i) heightened concern in the community that the issues have been inadequately debated in the Parliament and the community, (ii) the election of a number of new Senators (thus reflecting current feeling in the electorate) who did not have the opportunity to participate in the previous committee, (iii) the inability of the previous committee, due to the legislation not being drafted, to obtain a full assessment of the cost to business of compliance with the proposal, and (iv) the possible failure of some State or Territory Governments to cooperate in vital aspects of the proposed system, this Bill be referred to a select committee, the powers and composition of which be contained in a subsequent resolution, and the committee: [Terms of Reference] (a) examine in detail the provisions of the Bill; (b) consider the provisions of the Bill in the light of the reports of the Joint Select Committee on the Australia Card and of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee; (c) examine the integrity of the card manufacturing process in order to assess the likelihood of forgery and fraudulent or criminal misuse; (d) assess the feasibility of the proposed system in the event of a failure of any one or more States to cooperate in the establishment of a births, deaths and marriages register; (e) examine the extent to which new or updated computer systems and recent crackdown campaigns on welfare cheating and tax avoidance and evasion will obviate the need for the proposed system; (f) assess the costs to the private sector of the introduction of the proposed system; (g) determine the capacity of the proposed Data Protection Agency to adequately safeguard and protect the privacy of the individual and to control unauthorised use of the card and/or individual identification numbers by commercial organisations such as credit insurance companies and unincorporated associations and clubs; (h) investigate the desirability, timing and nature of comprehensive privacy legislation in Australia and the extent to which it might or should replace the privacy protection arrangements proposed in relation to the Australia Card; (i) examine the extent to which the proposed system accords with OECD guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data (1981); (j) consider the appropriateness of the range and level of proposed penalties on individuals and other entities; (k) determine whether any, and if so what, limits or penalties should attach to unauthorised use of identification numbers by Federal, State and local government agencies and private sector bodies; (l) take evidence from overseas experts as to the experience of other countries with analogous identity card systems; and (m) present a final report on or before the first day of sitting in 1988. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(5.33) —I sense that perhaps the period of calm and quiet associated with our courtesies to our maiden speakers may be over and we may be reverting to the norm. Before proceeding with the remainder of my speech, which was interrupted on the adjournment of the House on Friday evening, I remind the chamber of the essential principles which I had then outlined. I would like to take up the philosophical line of argument which my colleague Senator Coulter has just left with us. He was saying that we need to be careful about the future and that there are warning signs regarding environment and conservation matters which we must urgently attend to. I think in many respects the debate concerning the projected future with the Australia Card is of a similar nature. We need to be warned about the future and about the propositions which are being placed before us by the Government. On Friday I drew attention to the fact that I believe there is a myth about the facts associated with the Australia Card proposition. I do not think we have any facts before us; we have only a series of suggestions as to what the future may hold. The Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 3] tells us the beginning of a story; it does not tell us the middle or the end of that story. We have an obligation to Australians of the future to try to capture the middle and, although it obviously will not have an end, the future. I challenge the Government to present us with any facts about what lies ahead in terms of this legislation. I believe it is acceptable for us to react at the subjective level. It is acceptable for us to ask questions about things in the future which are obviously totally subjective and cannot, by their very nature, be rendered objective. I suggested that this Bill should be rejected on four grounds. First of all, it is unnecessary and never has been necessary. I outlined that it is not necessary to have an Australia Card to catch the tax avoiders and the welfare frauds, and I hope I substantiated that argument. Secondly, I suggested that I believe that the Bill is dangerous and destructive in that it will inherently push us across a critical line from a society which is fundamentally libertarian and free into one which will be essentially authoritarian. I cited examples of the authoritarianism of the Bill. The words `authority', `authorities' and `agencies' occur most throughout the 130 pages of the Bill. On Saturday I was in my home city of Gosford at a rally concerning the ID card and somebody asked, `What happens if you do not want your photograph to appear on the proposed ID card?'. One of the lawyers located the appropriate paragraph in the Bill, and I quote it as an example of the way in which this piece of potential legislation is worded: as to the making of a photograph of a person, if the issuing agency or the Authority is satisfied that the making of the photography may reasonably be expected to cause an unreasonable amount of distress to the person or to a member of the person's family. In such circumstances a person is exempted from having a photograph taken. The key words, of course, are that the issuing agency or authority has to be satisfied of how somebody feels. I am not sure how it satisfies itself that this is reasonably distressing to an individual. Does it measure a person's pulse or take his blood pressure? How do the agencies and authorities that are given so much power in this Bill establish all these magical dimensions of what is out there in front of us. It is incredibly dangerous to propose that we should place ourselves in the hands of such agencies and authorities. I mentioned that I believe this is inherently a dishonest Bill. It has been brought before us dishonestly through a double dissolution. It in fact suggests dishonest circumstances which will confront the average Australian. It implies that we in fact have a choice as to whether we want to be card carriers. Yet it states that if we choose not be card carriers we will be deprived of our access to employment and to resources and we will become worse than second class citizens. It suggests choice when in fact there is not choice at all. My first three reasons for rejecting the Bill are, first, that it is totally unnecessary; secondly, that it is inherently dangerous in that it will change the whole Australian lifestyle, and it will render us an authoritarian society when in fact we are now predominantly a free and libertarian society; thirdly, it is dishonest in two respects; and fourthly, it is illogical. The very government which places this Bill before us today is the same very government that several months ago placed before us a Bill of Rights, albeit an inadequate Bill of Rights. The two Bills contradict one another in spirit. The Bill of Rights has been withdrawn because it was a shoddy piece of work and it was revealed to be inadequate. This Bill is an equally shoddy piece of work and it is now being revealed as such and reacted to by Australians in such a way that, hopefully, it also will be withdrawn. Let us look at some of the other inconsistencies and illogicalities. The Bill stands in contradiction to another Bill enacted by this Government, the Freedom of Information Bill. It is so much in contradiction to that Bill that it is actually exempt from the provisions of that Bill. The Government says that people should have access to information, particularly about themselves. It concedes that, so through the Freedom of Information Act I could look at the records held in the Department of Defence about my service as an Army officer; yet I am not entitled, under the same Bill, to have access to information about myself. I believe that there is an inherent contradiction there. Let us suppose that I choose as a senator to be a non-card carrier and I find myself denied access to my savings. I believe that I could in fact challenge under the anti-discrimination legislation whether or not I should have access to my hard earned assets. I believe that in fact it would be difficult to untangle the inherent contradiction between this piece of legislation and anti-discrimination legislation. I contend that in fact this piece of legislation is logically inconsistent with legislation which has been brought before the Parliament by this Government and enacted. I believe that not only are there legal and logical inconsistencies, but also there are philosophical inconsistencies. At a rally in Gosford on Saturday a gentleman stood up and asked a question of the Government representative. The honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) was asked, `Sir, when was the Eureka Stockade, what was it about and what was its outcome?'. It appeared that the question that he was posing at the time was extremely irrelevant. It was really only later that we realised that it was an absolute pearl; that in fact numerous exponents on the Government side of the chamber so often in so many rallies wave in front of us the flag of the Eureka Stockade. The truth is that the Eureka Stockade was an action in defence of civil liberties. It was in fact an action defending the right of individuals not to carry licences, not to carry pieces of paper. It was a reaction against authorities demanding to see those pieces of paper on frequent and unnecessary occasions. This was the occasion a little over 100 years ago on which we came closest in the history of our nation to civil war. In fact, it was virtually the same set of circumstances that now are being contrived by those who wave before us so frequently the symbol of freedom-the symbol of Eureka. I suggest that by doing so they are being philosophically inconsistent as well. Another gentleman stood up at this rally and posed an interesting question. He asked: If, as we are told by the Government, the ratio of Australians in favour of the ID card is 60:40, why do we not see more people at these rallies crying out for the Australia Card than we see people denying and rejecting it? The fact is that the Australian people do not favour this proposition. The fact is that the statistics that have been obtained through recent surveys, indicating 80 per cent rejection, are nearer the truth. The fact is that the people who voted for this Government are embarrassed by the proposition. They are not prepared to come out in large numbers to defend it. The fact is that the Minister responsible, the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan), is not going through the process of calling rallies in support of this concept because the Government knows that it has no public support. In conclusion, I cite the extraordinary contradiction that I referred to in my maiden speech of the situation in Australia where everybody in this chamber can go to a special place called a Totaliser Agency Board, pull down off the wall a piece of paper and express his opinion about the most irrelevant garbage, about what will win the third race at Randwick on Saturday. That sampling of opinion is processed by the most sophisticated computer in the land and the results are displayed on every television screen at night. Yet we cannot have a say in a referendum about whether we want an Australia Card. Senator Maguire —We just had it. Senator McLEAN —Rubbish, we did not have it. We cannot have a say about whether we want a new Australian flag or nuclear ships in our harbours because this Government in fact does not have a commitment to democracy. It has a commitment to autocracy and that commitment is embodied most profoundly in this Bill. The Government has conned the Australian people into the deception that they had such democracy at the recent poll. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(5.45) —The amendment before the chamber today relates to the referral of the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 3] to a Senate select committee. One might wonder at first blush why that might be necessary after the extraordinary campaign of silence by the Government on the one hand and the extraordinarily effective campaign by its vast multitude of opponents on the other. But the answer is that the Government has nonetheless chosen to ignore what is clearly a massive shift in public opinion and a demonstrated range of concerns and wishes to proceed with this iniquitous legislation. The amendment, therefore, is that the Bill be referred to a committee. We should bear in mind that no such Bill has previously been examined by any parliamentary committee. It is simply a proposal in vacuo. The committee will be asked to examine something of the order of 11 new areas of concern and all Australians will need very satisfactory answers to each of them. It is probably instructive that even the Deputy Prime Minister, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), perhaps in speaking off the cuff at the weekend, indicated that if the Senate were to come up with a more satisfactory alternative the Government would listen. That is the first chink we have had in the armour at the top but it is certainly not the first chink we have had in the armoury of Labor Premiers and acolytes around the nation because there is not a Premier who will speak in support of the card. All we have had in recent days is that champion of civil liberties, David Lange, weighing in, lending his support, so-called, to the Government proposal on the most specious of grounds-a most simplistic and dishonest justification which was trotted out several years ago and which has been utterly discredited since then. In other words, the original justification for such a draconian proposal was that it would somehow eliminate welfare cheating and somehow catch up with tax avoidance and evasion. The answer to that is now quite clear: it will do nothing of the sort. We have had an intensive investigation mounted by a joint select committee which very critically and carefully examined those very areas. It is probably worth noting that that committee had the benefit of advice from the two major departments which are in a position to understand these concerns and give advice on the best method of dealing with them. What did the Australian Taxation Office say in its submission to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card? It said that it favoured increasing the integrity of the present system. It was on that basis that the Committee came up with its recommendation-a majority recommendation, it might be said-that the taxation identification number which currently applies to all citizens should be used as a method of detecting tax evasion and avoidance. The real problem in the taxation area is the black economy. If one is not prepared to have a broad based consumption tax, that great panacea which so attracted the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the wake of the Tax Summit but which ultimately was thrown out of the window, if one is not prepared to have something that ensures to a considerable extent that there are not large numbers of people making black profits, using black money and paying virtually no tax, one is left with proposals that are very much second best alternatives. However, the Australia Card will do nothing to catch up with any form of cash economy. People will still continue to pay the gardener in cash, to pay for home duties in cash and perhaps to engage more in the barter system then they have to date. However, there is no way in which all those myriad personal transactions are somehow going to be detected or overridden or that people will be frightened off simply because there is this draconian legislation with all those massive penalties attaching to it. No, people are not going to be deterred in that way. They will simply vote with their feet, they will vote with their pockets and they will continue to do what they have always done. We can decry that but to the extent that it is a function of a personal income tax system that is too oppressive, the answer lies in re-forming that system. It does not lie in introducing a Big Brother surveillance technique that is meant to detect all the minor transactions and to blow them up into cases of high treason against the State. One might think that the onus of proof will be reversed and that we will all be required to disclose any peccadilloes. An examination of the legislation would suggest innumerable grounds for concern on a civil liberties basis. For instance, the range of fines bears examination. If a person fails to report loss of an ID card within 21 days, the penalty is a mere $5,000. That is chicken-feed because the bulk of this legislation has penalties of $5,000 to $20,000. If the Tax Office wants to see one's card and one refuses to hand it over, the fine is $20,000. A person can be compelled to attend a compulsory conference. The significance of that is that if the State Premiers go along with the approach they have taken to date-perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) would merely call it pusillanimous, but others might say that they are displaying more integrity than their Federal colleagues-what will happen if the State Premiers refuse to co-operate? It is clear that they have refused to date, because the South Australian Legislative Council was recently invited to vote in support of this proposition, and the Labor Government declined to do so. The Victorian Legislative Council similarly was asked to make its births, deaths and marriages register available to the Federal Government in due course, but the Government refused to support the Liberal Opposition, which said that the register should not be made available. It is clear that State Premiers are sitting on the fence. But let us say that they have the courage of their convictions and ultimately decline to make those records available. What recourse will the Government have? Under clause 74 of the Bill to date the Federal Government or the Health Insurance Commission, the card authority, is entitled to record all manner of personal information obtained by means of registers made available to them or otherwise. If it is able to obtain information from the Australian Federal Police, the National Crime Authority, a range of lower level institutions and organisations, it can compel attendance at a conference to verify the accuracy of that information. If that is not the greatest invasion and intrusion into privacy, I do not know what is. But the Government could go down that path because the legislation allows the use of information obtained from the registers or otherwise. It does not say `legally obtained'; it simply says `or otherwise'-in other words, by any means possible. Is that not an open invitation to circumvent the law or to take advantage of material that might be provided by the bloke over the fence who wants to blow the whistle on a neighbour for having a second job, or by others who are dissatisfied at what they think is welfare bludging? One must bear in mind that there is a lot of this whistle blowing going on. Before the Committee of which Senator Puplick was a member was set up, I remember reading that the Department of Social Security was concerned about what it called Saturday night concerns. Obviously people got together in the pub and thought they knew people who were cheating on the system. They would ring the Taxation Office on Monday morning and the office would have to investigate those people. What was the result of those investigations? The result was that the figure of 72 per cent of people alleged by outsiders to have been illegally obtaining unemployment benefits was found to be unsubstantiated. In other words, there was a massive mythology that had grown up around a range of welfare benefits. There are people who improperly, as it turns out, provide information to the authorities. What is there to stop the Taxation Office saying, `We have to be careful about this. We cannot just act on the say-so of some disgruntled citizen. What we will do is to call Puplick in and ask whether he is working two jobs or three. We will ask him whether he has been disclosing the income, we will ask him how long he has been doing this sort of work and will verify the accuracy of the information. Having done that, we can rest assured that it can go on our national register.' That is what the legislation allows at present. If one fails to attend a compulsory conference, one can be liable to penalties from $5,000 to $20,000. If an employer fails to see one's identification card, he can be liable for penalties of $20,000. This might be felt to be somewhat cute, but I would point out that the legislation imposes no penalties on the government. In fact, the Government goes through this elaborate charade of saying that cards are not compulsorily required; they could simply be asked for. But they have got to be asked for by employers and a whole range of other agencies under pain of paying very large penalties. The onus is put on honest citizens and organisations to do the Government's dirty work for it. If they do not, they will pay the penalty. If stockbrokers, bankers, accountants, lawyers, real estate agents fail to record an identification card number after each and every financial transaction, they cop it in the neck with fines of up to $20,000. The Government is having all this surveillance work undertaken for it free of charge by people who can pay massive penalties if they fail to co-operate in a so-called voluntary scheme. It is fair to say that if the legislation is supposed to have the support of the community, it should not need to impose those sorts of financial penalties on ordinary law-abiding citizens. The civil liberties and privacy aspects are at the forefront of the debate and have brought out of the woodwork a whole range of strange bedfellows-ones who, for various reasons, were unprepared to voice their concerns in public prior to the election. No doubt that occurred because many well-intentioned and honourable card-carrying members of the Australian Labor Party did not want to see the Party embarrassed by the truth before the election. We have had card-carrying members of the ALP in this very chamber who have found themselves compelled to disown their own honest statements. Undoubtedly there will be more of them who will go around wringing their hands in private saying how shocking and how horrible this is. They will say, `Do not misunderstand my personal position, my friend on the other side, because I personally am against it and so is my faction, but I am sure you understand the rules of the game and that we cannot say that in public. When it comes to a vote in the chamber, we will not be able to voice our opposition'. What sort of situation is that? It probably reflects very poorly on the political party that imposes that sort of iron law of politics on its members. It is interesting that it would not contemplate a conscience vote on an issue such as this when its own members regard this as one of the ultimate conscience issues. My colleague Senator Puplick rightly said that one of the criticisms that other factional groupings in the ALP would have of their left colleagues is that sometimes they are guilty of a propensity for telling the truth. Large numbers of them have told the truth to their colleagues, to community groups and occasionally to the media, but they will not be telling that form of truth where it counts in this Parliament. They will not be indicating the extent of their concern in the proper and constitutional manner by voting against it. It is clear that such security concerns are not fatuous or unreal. Senator Ryan would wish privacy concerns away. She would claim that there will be compliance and that dedicated landlines will be unable to be broken into. We all know, as I am sure the community well understands, that it is one thing to compel people to honour a system; it is another to enforce it. It can be said if that there were a whole set of safety requirements in aviation, if rigid standards were imposed and policed efficiently, and if those requirements were complied with on every occasion, no plane would ever fall to the ground. But that happens and tragedies of massive proportions occur, in many instances because of human error. There is no reason why human nature will not take its course in this area, too. It does not just stop there. People for their own reasons will be disgruntled with former employers, the Health Insurance Commission or otherwise, and they will have all sorts of reasons for wanting to embarrass the Government, for wanting to tip the bucket on colleagues or on ordinary law-abiding members of the community. One simply cannot guarantee the integrity of that data. One simply cannot ensure that there will not be sabotage taking place within government instrumentalities. One cannot be sure that for all sorts of reasons people will not plant devices in the so-called protected data protection area that will blow the whole scheme apart. It is clear that there are very many reasons why we should have concerns about privacy and I do not need to traverse the ground that has been well harrowed before in relation to the McGoldrick case where records of young girls who had had abortions were made available to the Australian Federal Police so that prosecutions could be launched. Not an eyelid has been batted, no explanation and no apology have been given by the authorities. I suppose that they would say that the end justified the means. Why were the records of doctors made available to the Sydney Morning Herald in the course of an industrial dispute? It was to try to embarrass those doctors, to try to frighten them off somehow so that they would capitulate. Again, the end justified the means. How can we be sure that that will not happen again? The simple answer is that we cannot. We should never take the word of any government that says that it can be sure. Senator Ryan wanders around making vacuous threats about large penalties which we know will do nothing to deter people who are in the business of leaking information, accidentally or deliberately. The Crimes Act is supposed to stop people from leaking to the media, yet leaking is probably one of the few growth industries under this Government. It will be ever thus. The fact of heavy penalties in the Crimes Act does nothing to deter leaking, nor will the sorts of penalty regimes in this Bill do anything to stop that sort of conduct, of which we have two classic examples to date. I turn to the question of costs because that is obviously one of the matters that drives this Prime Minister. He thinks that somehow at the end of the day if he can coerce and cajole his colleagues into passing a highly unpopular and intrusive piece of legislation, there will be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and that his Government will be able to deliver tax cuts because this legislation will recoup massive amounts of revenue for the Government. All these tax cheats and welfare frauds-people who are presumably the traditional Labor Party constituency-will be caught red-handed in their thousands and forced to disgorge their ill-gotten gains. As a result the Government will have an abundance of riches and it will be able to hand on these wonderful and illusory tax cuts which we saw last July. This legislation will cost about $750m in start-up costs. It will require the employment of some 2,000 additional public servants. The cost to banking alone will be $100m to $300m. The cost to the private sector in general cannot be determined, but the Confederation of Australian Industry thinks it will be about $377m. I wonder whether honourable senators know why we cannot be more precise. The material is available. The Business Regulation Review Unit has looked into this matter very carefully and it provided a report to the Government some 18 months ago. Where is that report? It will not be tabled, disclosed or released. Despite a freedom of information application made by Mr James Porter, the Government has been consistently stalling. It has provided all manner of irrelevant material but on the crucial issue it has refused to hand over that report. On what basis? It comments on a co-ordination submission to Cabinet and by definition that is supposed to mean that it is a Cabinet document. One does not have to be a flash lawyer to see that that is a fairly large leap of logic. In other words, the Government is putting up the shutters for as long as possible because it does not want the community to know the full extent of the cost of this intrusive and divisive legislation. It is clear that there are mammoth costs that will not be justified in recoupment. More importantly, when this idea was first proposed it was thought that somehow it would do magic things to catch all sorts of moneys that were not being handed over within the tax system. But it is worth remembering that at long last the Australian Taxation Office has undergone a fundamental upgrading of its resources-$700m of computer systems have belatedly been installed. After many years of turning blind eyes to bottom of the harbour schemes, Slutzkin schemes and the like, the Tax Office has decided to get down to business and has engaged in a fairly professional series of spot audits and all manner of measures to frighten the daylights out of taxpayers in order to ensure that this sort of money is no longer able to be avoided and evaded. The Auditor-General had some fairly terse things to say about the effectiveness and efficiency of the Tax Office. After a number of audit investigations he made it very clear that he was dissatisfied with its performance. Whereas the Government claims that large revenue gain will derive from this legislation, the Auditor-General, who conducted five efficiency reports, estimated that the amount of tax revenue forgone because of undisclosed dividends and interest income was in the range of $300m to $500m per annum. He went on to say that the non-disclosure arose because of two fundamental problems-lack of information and inadequate matching capabilities. The Tax Office claims that only 18 to 20 per cent of all interest paid is reported. Of that amount only 50 per cent is successfully matched. The Auditor-General claimed that if the Taxation Office had adopted a more active approach-proactive instead of reactive-to demanding more information from financial institutions, in particular trading and savings banks, the appropriate information should have been more readily available. The Tax Office lacked the necessary capacity to process and it had not had sufficient resources. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure was astounded that the Tax Office had persevered for so long with a labour intensive approach when funding for automatic data processing acquisitions had been so significantly underspent over recent years. The Tax Office is getting its act together at long last. As a result we are seeing a whole range of additional revenue that the Government had not even budgeted for, be it $535m from fringe benefits tax or large dollops of capital gains tax as a result of a share market boom which is largely artificial. People are not prepared to sell their shares at the moment because they bought them before September 1985. As a result the Government will get even more revenue from the more efficient methods that are being adopted by the Tax Office. The gains that one could project from the Australia Card legislation will be largely illusory. Therefore, one should have the greatest of concerns about the effectiveness of that approach. The Australia Card will do absolutely nothing in the area of organised crime. The Australian Federal Police, Mr Costigan, QC, and Mr Doug Meagher, QC, are in heated agreement that the cash economy will continue and that organised crime will thumb its nose at this type of legislation. One does not have to be in the business of forging cards but we know that some 20,000 false Medicare cards exist. It is estimated that it would be just as simple to forge cards in this area if one were in the business of doing so. People in organised crime, if they turned their minds to it, would have no difficulty at all. I will read the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. It sums up the fundamental concerns that we have in this area. It reads: The majority believes the creation of a new bureaucracy of 2,000 public servants within the Health Insurance Commission, with the sole task of identifying every man, woman and child in Australia, is a wasteful exercise which will not address the problems of tax evasion and social security fraud but will provide the mechanism by which the very fabric of our society will be irreversibly altered, opening the way for the greatest attack on the privacy of individuals as the `Identity Bureau' identifies, monitors and updates information on every person- or should I say `card subject'- in Australia. If that is not the most sweeping and comprehensive damnation of this scheme, I do not know what is. That was the considered finding of a committee that took evidence from a large number of well-informed people. It did not have the benefit of overseas experience but I am sure that in due course when we have people such as the former head of the data protection agency in Sweden, who was prepared, no doubt, to make known to the Australian community why the system has been such an unmitigated disaster in Sweden, we will have an even more widespread body of informed opinion able to rail against this card. Whether one looks at the costs, revenue gains, the ability to deter organised crime, the invasion of privacy, the draconian penalties or the ability to catch up with welfare cheats, this legislation is found wanting on every score. One would have thought that Mr Keating's new culture of compliance would be another potent argument why this legislation is already out of date and will not achieve its purpose. He would have us believe that we are now an honest tax paying society, which is why he has been awash with funds and able to deliver an illusory balanced Budget. One cannot have it both ways. If he is right, there will not be too many more loopholes to be plugged and revenue detected by this identity card. The Department of Social Security gave evidence to the Joint Select Committee on the Australia Card that one per cent of social security fraud involved false identity. We already know that the Government is calling in 104,000 long-term unemployed to put them through the wringer to make them explain-no doubt with the onus of proof on them-why they should continue to receive unemployment benefits and, if necessary, social security benefits. Undoubtedly, those sorts of actions will result in an increase in revenue and a decrease in welfare fraud, but they do not require an Australia Card. The Joint Select Committee reported that an Australia Card would do nothing to deter illegal immigration. My colleague, Alan Cadman, the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, recently pointed out yet another mess of deficiency in the legislation. He said that the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs had confirmed that officers of his Department would be unable to ask suspected illegal immigrants to produce their ID cards. In fact, if they did, they would face fines of $5,000 or gaol. However, employers who unwittingly engage the services of an illegal immigrant can be fined up to $20,000 if they fail to require the production of the card. Again, this is a classic example of employers being asked to bear the brunt, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs standing by, wringing its hands and not being able to do anything about it and, in the meantime, illegal immigrants being entitled to carry on as they have to date. Any compulsory identifying numbers system which will bring together information in a manner never contemplated or achieved in any other civilised country can be justified only if it meets all the necessary criteria which were found to be wanting by the Select Committee. In other words, such a system would be justified only if it were effective in dealing with tax evasion and avoidance-it is not. Such a system would have to be effective in preventing welfare fraud-it will not. It must have an impact on the level of illegal immigration in Australia-it will not. It must provide adequate privacy safeguards-it will not. The proposals must be cost effective-they are not. On every count it can be seen that this legislation is nothing more than an ideological vendetta, a misguided notion on the part of the Prime Minister, with precious support from others in the Government, to impose a fool's pot of gold on the Australian community. In mindlessly chasing some additional revenue down the track, the Government is determined to perpetrate a massive invasion on civil liberties and a massive and unnecessary exercise in enlarging the size of the public sector, in threatening invasions on personal privacy on a scale never before contemplated here or elsewhere and in imposing massive personal inconvenience on large numbers of Australians and huge and unnecessary costs on the private sector and ordinary taxpayers-all for the sake of a crusade which is entirely unjustified and will do nothing to address the real economic issues in Australia. If we are intent on turning this country around and seriously want to address the current account deficit, which will still be about 4 per cent of gross domestic product-$11.6 billion a year-and to lower the gross foreign debt of $109 billion, we must become more efficient and productive, by encouraging a culture of productivity, not one of invasion and intrusion and of wanting to look over peoples' shoulders to ensure that they are not somehow cheating on the system. The way ahead is not to have an Australia Card. It is to have a commitment to working harder and smarter. The last thing that this card will do is unite Australians behind that sort of worthwhile and constructive approach to right the wrongs of the economy. Instead, it will divide Australians in a way they have never been divided. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(6.14) —It falls to my happy lot to speak after that extraordinary contribution by Senator Alston, who managed to smear the integrity of just about every Commonwealth department. No doubt, I shall have the opportunity in my speech to pick up some of those points. Let us be clear why we are debating, for the third time, the Australia Card Bill. It is because the legislation was twice rejected in the Senate. That was the reason for the double dissolution. It has been necessary to submit that legislation for the third time to the House of Representatives, where it has been passed, and the Senate. If it is passed in the Senate, there will be no need for a joint House sitting. On the evidence from the Opposition, it seems clear that the legislation will be defeated in the Senate. Opposition senators are intent not only on defeating it but on passing a staying motion and referring the legislation to a further inquiry, despite the comprehensive inquiry into this whole matter by the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. It is edifying to read what Opposition senators said during that inquiry. A deferral motion, instead of outright opposition, is a particularly curious ploy by the Opposition. Is the Opposition or is it not intent on defeating this legislation? That is not clear. If the Opposition is, why move amendments to provide for yet another inquiry into something that has been so comprehensively debated and considered? The Opposition has sometimes said that the Government is not dedicated to introducing this legislation and that it did not raise the matter much during the election campaign. Of course, like almost everything else the Opposition says, that is false. The Government made it clear that the Australia Card was the issue about which it was going to the people, along with any number of other issues. It was included in the Government's advertisement material. Indeed, the first advertisement placed by the Government referred to the Australia Card. It is important to quote from the second reading speech of the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan), who said: It is the clarity with which a government makes its future intentions clear, not the extent of the debate, that is the crucial issue in mandate theory. The Government's intention is clear. The legislation will be passed. If one wants to argue that the debate has not been extensive, one only need read through Hansard, particularly Senate Hansard before the election. Honourable senators and honourable members have been asked many questions on the issue. I have spent much time talking about it to people with queries at various community meetings in South Australia. I am sure that the same is true of most of my parliamentary colleagues in Government. I suspect that the Opposition has been talking, too, judging from the organised campaign with which we must now deal. Why did the Opposition not raise the issue often during the recent election campaign? It is easy enough to kick the Government. I am happy to redress that imbalance by suggesting that one reason why the issue was not raised too much during the election campaign was that the Opposition was running scared. In a report on Thursday 20 August 1987 the Australian Financial Review stated: According to Liberal sources, the Opposition did not campaign strongly against the ID cards in the last election, mainly because market research showed 64 per cent of the electorate were in favour of the cards and it was judged too difficult to turn around during the election campaign. On the Opposition's head be it. Now that honourable senators opposite are happily in Opposition, they have something to do with their time-is that what I can judge from this? It was too hard during the election campaign. They lost so, as a filler, they will now get back to the issue. The Opposition's intentions are curious. It is fuddled and muddled about what the argument is. The Opposition is not clear whether it wants to oppose the legislation or to inquire into it further. The Opposition is not clear about how the legislation will work or the card's intention. If one listened to Senator Alston one would think that we were bound on the most divisive campaign that ever was. One would also understand that it is a process of defaming government departments-almost every one of them, according to him. I think that is part of the misinformation and mischief that are characteristic of the Opposition's position in this debate, as they were in the previous two debates. Nothing new is being offered from the Opposition in justification for defeating this legislation for the third time. I think it is important for anybody listening to this debate to understand that the Hawke Government has been absolutely consistent on the Australia Card; it is the Opposition that has made a complete somersault. I shall quote two earlier statements from the Opposition. A media release dated 5 June 1985, by the Hon. Ralph Hunt, then Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, said: The proposed national identification system offered dual benefits to the Australian people . . . The use of plastic cards for an effective means of identification would streamline the collection of tax revenue, imposing a greater accountability on that small minority of taxpayers who sought to evade their responsibilities to the community . . . The second major benefit would be to cut down on fraud affecting Government outlays, especially social welfare payments . . . I will be making representations to the government strongly supporting this aspect of the `White Paper' proposals. A media release of 8 June 1985 by Mr Charles Blunt, the honourable member for Richmond and at that point shadow Minister for social security, stated: The introduction of a national identification system, using ID cards, offered benefits to the Australian people, which outweighed any civil liberties considerations. The use of plastic cards as a means of identification would streamline the collection of tax revenue, imposing greater accountability on that small minority who seek to evade their responsibilities to the community by not paying taxes. Another major benefit would be a reduction of fraud affecting Government outlays, especially social welfare payments . . . The introduction of an ID system should require people to quote the same identity number to both the Tax Office and the Social Security Department. That was the view of two members of the Opposition in 1985. Subsequently they sort of had that view and sort of did not. To elaborate further, somewhere between November 1985 and November 1986 the Opposition switched from an ID card approach to favouring an alternative identification number system, that is, an expanded tax file number. Charles Blunt, James Porter and Senator Chris Puplick all signed the majority report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, which supported the introduction of an upgraded tax file number identification system for tax and social security purposes. This is the only substantive point on which the majority and the minority reports disagreed-that actual form of the identification system rather than whether or not there should be one. More recently, however, the Opposition has apparently abandoned its support for either the Australia Card or the tax file number system. The Opposition dumped Senator Puplick, the then Opposition spokesman on health-James Porter-and Charles Blunt, who had all supported the tax file number system. The tax file numbering proposal was dumped despite recommendations supported by Senator Puplick, Mr Porter and Mr Blunt and despite the recommendations of the all party report which said: . . . with or without the adoption of the Australia Card the Australian Taxation Office take the necessary steps to establish a high integrity identification system which would ensure maximum taxpayer compliance. In the last debate on this matter the Opposition opposed an amendment by the Australian Democrats to introduce a tax file number identification system-the very thing the Opposition had opted for only a couple of months previously. I wonder just how cynical one can get. The Opposition has modified its position. It has moved from being all in favour of an ID system to being in favour of a tax identification number system, and is now totally opposed to either. We know what Opposition members really believe. They believe that it is an excellent idea. They say, `Let us object to it while the Government gets it in place', hoping that they will one day be in government to reap the benefits. On this performance, they should never make the Government benches. Mr Howard is another whose view of this whole proposal has changed a great deal. It was reported in an AM interview that Mr Howard had instituted an inquiry into the investigation of an ID system as early as 31 May 1979. The report said further that Mr Howard wrote that an interdepartmental committee under the auspices of the Public Service Board had been established to report on an identity card system and that the committee at one stage went overseas to collect information. The interview progressed and Mr Howard was asked whether that was true. He said, yes, it was true, and that the investigation has started. When asked what had changed, Mr Howard said, `I don't have that view now'. When asked why not, he said that the first reason was the enormous invasion of privacy, the second was that the savings and advantages were not great, and the third and most important was its cost. He said that it would mean 2,000 extra public servants and a $2 billion extra cost on small business. As I said in my speech in the earlier debate on 1 April 1987, on all three of those points Mr Howard was wrong. On all three of those points the Opposition is wrong. On all three of those points the campaign against the Australia Card is wrong and is based on misinformation and, of recent times, a very coherent campaign of fear-mongering. I would like at this point to take up the invasion of privacy issue. What will the Australia Card do? The Australia Card will require that a person be identified with the Australia Card, which will have on it a photograph, a name, a number and a signature. It will be supported by the information in the Australia Card Register on date of birth, sex, private address, work address and other names under which a person may wish to operate, as in the classic case of many married women who would like to continue their current practice of using two different identifications-that is, their maiden name and their married name-for the purposes of their work and their private lives. Both of those names would be kept but the identification number for those people would be the same, under whichever name they operated. One of the most important scare tactics being employed is the suggestion that the Australia Card will allow a dossier to be collected on people. Let me say very clearly that there will be no dossier collection under the Australia Card. There will be no amalgamation of information into one central computer. Tax information will stay with the Australian Taxation Office, social security records will remain with the Department of Social Security and Medicare information will remain separate and secure. I will say that again. For people who are concerned that the-- Senator Puplick —Do you regard the McGoldrick thing as secure information? Senator CROWLEY —Will the honourable senator wait? I will come to that point in a minute. There will be no dossier gathering under the Australia Card and under the Register. There will be no amalgamation of detailed information about people into one central computer. Senator Alston —How can you say that? Senator CROWLEY —Tax information will stay with the Tax Office, social security records will stay with the Department of Social Security and Medicare information will stay with Medicare. Senator Alston asks how I can say that. They are precisely the terms of the legislation. The only interchange of information will be precisely that which is allowed at the moment-nothing further. As to the McGoldrick case, it is very mischievous and misrepresentative of the Opposition to suggest that that was due to a breakdown in security in the Health Insurance Commission. The facts of the matter indicate quite otherwise. The misrepresentation in that case is very mischievous, almost to the point where the Health Commission ought to be able to sue-- Senator Alston —Tell us how it happened. Senator CROWLEY —I can tell the honourable senator that, but I will come to it in due course, if he does not mind waiting. The interesting thing about this debate is that as soon as one point is raised the argument slips to some other point. The first point that must be made is that the Australia Card Register will contain a person's name, a person's signature, the number associated with that person and nothing further. There will be no central dossier; there will be no gathering of information on a person into one file. There will be nothing further than is currently the case. The integrity of each department will continue. Unless that is understood, unless that is believed, unless that is accepted by the Opposition and by the people of the community, the fears will continue. But it is very mischievous-in fact, it is blatant lying by the Opposition and anybody else campaigning in this identity card debate-to suggest that other than that is the case. The very important matter of privacy has been of the gravest concern to the Government. Indeed, it has established the Data Protection Agency to overview the privacy of information to be held. Not only is the legislation establishing that Agency the most extensive to have been put in place to this point but it is also to be added to by privacy legislation shortly to be introduced into this place. The Government is acutely aware of the debate and the tension arising from it, about the rights of individuals as opposed to the rights of the community. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator CROWLEY —I rise to continue my remarks on the third time that the Senate has addressed itself to the Australian Card legislation. It is important to recall exactly what this legislation is about. In summary, it can be said that the Australia Card program is a simple and effective means of validating a person's identity specifically for taxation, Medicare and social security purposes. It is the single most effective measure that can be introduced to combat tax evasion and welfare fraud. It is important that we keep in mind those two principal aims of this legislation. This Government absolutely objects to any methods that continue the promotion of tax evasion which, as has been said in other places, became the largest growth industry under the seven years of the Fraser Government. It is a matter of the gravest concern that steps that can be taken to reduce tax evasion are not taken. It is also true that social welfare fraud continues despite considerable efforts and considerable improvements over the past 12 to 18 months to redress the imbalance. In summary, the essence of the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 3] is well put by recalling what the Minister for Community Services and Health, Dr Blewett, said in the other place when he introduced the legislation for the second time. He said: This Government believes that the people of this country have a fundamental right to expect that their elected representatives protect them from those who are operating dishonestly within the tax and welfare systems. They have a right to expect that the Government ensures as best it can that all contribute their fair share of tax. They have a right to expect that welfare benefits are paid only to those who are truly entitled to those benefits. They have a right to expect that immigrants to this country who are operating within our system are here legally. Finally, and very importantly, they have a right to expect that, in going about achieving these fundamental goals, governments do everything within their power to safeguard the rights to privacy and civil liberties of the individual. It is because the Government is convinced, as is the majority of the Australian population, that the Australia Card program will significantly achieve and enhance all of these I am today reintroducing the Australia Card Bill 1986. I strongly endorse that very pithy summary and outline by Dr Blewett of the intentions and purposes of this legislation. I recall the last remarks of Senator Alston who, in his contribution just prior to mine, said that the legislation was a distraction from increasing the productivity in this country. I ask Senator Alston how one measures productivity of a country if not in terms of, at least in one dimension of, the revenue collected from those people who contribute to productivity through the work force and through paying their taxes. Through a proper collection of taxes a country can have one measure of its productivity. It was precisely because under the Fraser Government so many people were unable to be productive and were forced out of the work force and the resultant great increase in unemployment that not only did tax receipts fall but also social welfare expenditure increased. If Senator Alston is serious about that, he should appreciate that the Australia Card, as a proper and comprehensive tax revenue collection method, will be a measure of the productivity of the country, not a campaign against it. I turn now to make some comment about revenue collection. I notice that the Opposition is totally unaccepting of the Government's estimate of return over the 10-year period of $4.7 billion. But the Opposition has absolutely no doubt at all in accepting the estimated cost figure of $759m. I ask why it believes in the cost outlay but does not accept the estimate, which is conservative by any criterion, of revenue gained. It is a matter of discredit to the Opposition that it believes one figure that suits its argument-that is, the cost of implementation of the program-but does not accept the huge return to government conservatively estimated at $4.7 billion over the first 10 years of operation. I have heard nothing from the Opposition to justify why it believes in one figure and totally disregards the other. The important thing about this legislation is that it will provide a high integrity method of identification of Australians. That will be dependent on the establishment of a national births, deaths and marriages register. Of course, the Opposition has complained fairly often that it will be easy to establish a fraudulent identity. The principal way people have established a fraudulent identity is by claiming to be, and therefore seeking a birth certificate of, another individual, particularly someone who they know has died, helped by the fact that at the moment the time lapse between when a person's death is reported and when the corresponding birth certificate is removed from circulation is considerable. Under the proposed national register of births, deaths and marriages that time lapse will be reduced very significantly to almost no time at all. The opportunity to obtain fraudulent identity by seeking and claiming a false birth certificate will be dramatically reduced. That is the first point about the higher integrity of the identification system. The second point is the way that identification will be established by, as far as is possible, an interview with every citizen in the country. Of course, that is why the estimated 2,000 public servants will be needed only for the initial establishment of identity. The higher the integrity of the identification in the first place, the less likely will be the prospect of fraud and fraudulent identification and the more the integrity of the system can be relied on down the line. Of course, this goes to two of the arguments used by the Opposition against the Australia Card. Firstly, curiously enough, Opposition members do not address the difficulties of identification of people under a tax file number system, for which they have strongly argued in the past. I have not heard from them and I have no way of understanding how they expect to have a high integrity on a tax file number and yet somehow suggest that the Australia Card will be of less integrity. Very importantly, the Australia Card will be comprehensive; it will cover every Australian. A tax file number system does not address the problem of what happens to people who do not pay tax. Will they have no identification and in what way will that lack of identification go against them? At the moment, because of this Government's rebate for pensioners, the large majority of people who do not pay tax are pensioners. Pensioners who receive no other income do not pay tax and therefore they would be excluded from the tax file number identification system proposed by the Opposition. The Opposition's proposal will also not help the many people who currently do not earn any income, have perhaps never earned income and never had a tax file number. In fact I have had brought to my attention by a number of constituents their eager anticipation of at last being able to be eligible for some kind of identification system. In particular, I mention the non-working spouses in a single income family. Those people have asked of me what sort of identification they would be eligible for under the tax file number system. The answer is none. But, of course, under the Australia Card system they would be eligible for identification and that would be beneficial to them in the way that the majority of them would use it, that is, through Medicare. The other important constituent problem that has been brought to my attention on a number of occasions is the difficulty of identification for people receiving welfare benefits, in particular for those people who travel or cross State borders. The necessity to re-establish identification in order to receive social security benefits in another State or office requires recipients to go through the whole business of identification once again. They have to find some kind of documentation. The requirements of the Department of Social Security are very significant, very special and precise because so many people have created false identities or tried to and successfully rorted the social security system based on false identity. It is very difficult to achieve a balance between the need for proper identification and some appreciation of the difficulties for people in establishing identification. As I have said, a number of constituents have raised with me that problem and I am in considerable sympathy with them, although I must say that the last constituent who appeared in my office, very distressed about the requirements of identification needed by our Department of Social Security in South Australia, turned out to be a gentleman on the lam, as one says, from prison in New South Wales. He had been charged with fraud and other associated misrepresentations of identity. His case simply gives the evidence why the Department has to be so tight and serious in its identification processes. It is also why the Australia Card would very much relieve the eligible social security recipients of that kind of constant problem. In fact, I think the fear-mongering campaign that has been pushed to the community over the last little while-but also in the previous debates, I might say-has been a cause of great anxiety for many social security recipients. I think it is very important to lay to rest the arguments used in terms of the invasion of their civil liberties and so on. In fact, exactly the opposite will be the case. Those people will be enormously advantaged by having a secure identification system that relieves them and the Department of the chronic problem of re-establishing identification. Those matters need to be put into the debate thoughtfully and responsibly. The Opposition is not arguing on the facts; it is actually arguing on the basis of fear, making wild statements about infringements of civil liberties and so on. The Government is acutely aware of the difficulties associated with civil liberties. That is why its Data Protection Agency legislation is presented along with this legislation; that is why it has looked at the national register of births, deaths and marriages and has set in train processes for it to be established; and that is also why its privacy legislation, soon to be introduced, will address those issues with particular significance with increased powers-more than have ever been provided for in the past. I was asked by some honourable senators opposite whether I could explain why the recent information in the so-called McGoldrick affair is not relevant to the discussion of the legislation, and I am pleased to do so. The release of that information was approved by the General Manager of the Health Insurance Commission via a delegation devolved from the Minister under the public interest provisions of the Health Insurance Act. There are no similar provisions in the Australia Card legislation. The comparisons are without any validity. It is not relevant to the Australia Card legislation and it has been a matter of gross misinformation-I should say almost wicked misinformation-to try to tie those two matters together. The case involving the Health Insurance Commission concerns the public interest provisions of its Act; there is no parallel in the Australia Card legislation. That must be clearly understood. In fact, further, the Health Insurance Commission's delegation to release information on this ground has been revoked by the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) pending a review of secrecy provisions in the Health Insurance Act. It is a matter of concern. It is also quite clear that this Government takes that concern very seriously and is taking steps as it always does to seriously address that issue so as to be sure that the criteria for any further release of information under that heading will be thoroughly examined and made very clear. To conclude my contribution, I can only say that this is the third time around: we have been through all of these arguments before. It is quite clear that an orchestrated campaign can arouse fear and anxiety in the community. The challenge for the Government is to allay that fear and anxiety. It will certainly be able to do that because once people have the facts-I know this from my own experience-they will be reassured. People in the community will then be very able to return to giving the considerable support they were giving to the Australia Card prior to this very mischievous and misinformed campaign. The legislation deals with the question of equity. It deals with the importance of collecting proper tax so that those people who contribute and who are honest in our community are not disadvantaged compared with the unscrupulous people who rort either the tax system or the social security system. It is a matter of great importance that we have those proper collections of tax and the right allocation of welfare or people cannot have a belief or trust in the system. The Australia Card will go a long way to ensuring that that proper collection of tax, that proper equity, is in place. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(8.14) —I rise to speak on the third debate in Parliament on the Australia Card Bill. I want first of all to comment on some aspects of the debate so far. I am pleased that the Government is entering into debate at least in this forum. Having attended a great many meetings on this issue and having in my diary several more, it has been a matter of disappointment that all too often Government members have not made themselves available in the public arena for debate on this issue. I would like to comment on the contribution to Friday's debate by Senator Schacht from South Australia. I quote what he said from the Hansard. He remarked that in his view: It is ironical in a sense that the Democrats, who are back here with seven senators, are here because of a Bill which they used to trigger a double dissolution. It is a Bill which has enhanced their survival and some of us in the major parties might think that that is one of the unfortunate circumstances of the double dissolution. I can assure Senator Schacht and anyone else that on this issue in particular-along with a number of others, of course-there is no irony in that fact. It is the case that out there in the electorate there is a mandate on this issue, and that mandate belongs to the Australian Democrats. We were the people who were instrumental in keeping this debate open all of this time and we are committed to continuing in that debate. There is no irony in our being returned in increased numbers and with an increased national vote for the first time since 1977. Towards the close of the debate on Friday when my colleague Senator McLean was referring to the many public meetings which he along with other Democrats have addressed, particularly during the election campaign, Senator Ryan interjected by saying: This is not a public meeting; this is the Senate. I think it is important to point out that the Australian Democrats are saying in the Senate the same things that we have been saying in the public meetings. What we are saying is what we will do and what we have done; that is, we oppose this legislation. Many other speakers opposing the Australia Card Bill have commented on the depth of feeling which we are finding out in the community. Speakers on Friday were able to point to a lunch time meeting in Adelaide of some 5,000 people which had just occurred at the time when, I think, Senator McLean drew it to the attention of the Parliament. That meeting reflected the same sort of move that had taken place in Orange just the day before. Last week in Bendigo in Victoria there was a very well attended meeting, and on Sunday I attended and spoke at a meeting in Geelong. In Victoria the coalition which has been formed against the Australia Card-a coalition typical of the movement against the Australia Card which is representative of people across the board-is regionalising, forming itself in regional areas. That meeting in Geelong on Sunday, along with the other meetings, gives the lie to the view which apparently has been expressed by the Government, and which was noted in an article in the Australian Financial Review on 2 September by Gregory Hywood, that it considers that opposition to the Australia Card has a shallow base. The Geelong meeting, which packed out a fairly modest hall which had seating for some 300 people, was called on three days notice. There was a little radio publicity but basically people just leafleted in the city of Geelong for three days and mustered over 300 people on a very sunny, very warm Sunday afternoon. There were people from across the board-young couples with their children and elderly couples who had come along after, I think, attending church in the morning and having lunch. The meeting was organised by a group of concerned unionists. That seems to me not to demonstrate a shallow base. People came to the provincial centre of Geelong from country centres around, including in particular the Colac area. As I said, that meeting was organised in three days. These meetings are going on and they will continue. They demonstrate that the Government's claimed support for the Australia Card has indeed fallen sharply. The problem is that the support which the Government had claimed prior to the election was based on perhaps two weaknesses. Firstly, many of the questions that were being asked in the public opinion polls were loaded. Secondly, the polls may have been canvassing the people but they were not canvassing the depth of the people's feeling. Once the information becomes available-much information has already been given in this debate-many of the people who in the past have said, `Yes, it is all right, there is nothing to hide, nothing to lose' become concerned and, when polled again, give a different opinion. Today an instance of this change in opinion came to the attention of the Australian Democrats. My colleague Senator McLean concluded his adjourned speech this afternoon before the sitting was suspended for dinner. A call came to Senator Jenkins's office from Western Australia where a member of the public had heard the last four minutes of Senator McLean's speech. He or she-I am not sure which it was-phoned Senator Jenkins's office to let us know that, whereas previously he or she had been a supporter of the Australia Card, he or she had now decided that there was sufficient additional information given in those few minutes to change his or her mind. This is indicative of what is happening. Perhaps we should consider some of the figures. A Saulwick Age poll on 8 September found that 39 per cent of people favoured the introduction of the Australia Card, as opposed to 65 per cent of people who were in favour of its introduction in June 1986-quite a swing in public opinion. Then there are the telephone polls conducted during television programs. Channel 10 recorded a figure of 86 per cent of people against the card and the Willesee program recorded a figure of 85 per cent against it. I certainly concede that telephone polls of this kind are able to be distorted easily. However, that very fact in itself is an argument. The fact that people were prepared to go to the trouble of mustering forces in that sort of instance clearly shows the strength of feeling that exists. Even if we cannot take the figures on face value-although if one compares them to the Saulwick poll the distortion is not significant-they demonstrate the strength of feeling and how much people want to get that feeling on the record. As has been pointed out frequently in this debate, the opposition to the card is extremely broadly based. A further demonstration of the breadth of opposition to the card occurred in the Australian this weekend. At the bottom of the letters page were published the figures between 3 September and 19 September relating to letters about the ID card received and published by the newspaper. There were 818 letters received-732 against the card, 43 in favour of it and 43 unspecified. The Australian has bent over backwards to give balance to the debate in regard to the letters it has published. It has published 312 letters against the card, 280 for the card and 17 unspecified. Again that is an interesting demonstration of the depth and breadth of opposition to the card. We must not dismiss the very broad base of the opposition. As other speakers have said, the national body which has been formed, the Australian Privacy Foundation, comprises people from across the political and social spectrum. The fact that Professor Lauchlan Chipman and Professor Ted Wheelwright share a concern must be significant and must not be ignored. Senator Haines is proud to join them and Frank Hardy, Alan Jones, the Hon. James McClelland, Tim Robertson, Dr Bruce Shepherd, Nadia Weiner, Professor Geoffrey de Q. Walker, Dr Michael Aroney, Ron Castan, Dr Peter Catts and the others who have joined together to form the Privacy Foundation. That is not forgetting the trustees of the Foundation, Sir Reginald Smithers, Bridget Gilling, Peter Garrett and Ben Lexcen. To dismiss that kind of community support would be very foolish on the part of any government perhaps in regard to any legislation. We must not forget that, as I found in Geelong at the weekend, within the union movement there is considerable opposition to the card, some of which ought to be causing the Government to think again. As always, it is very important to have union support if one is going to push through action on a matter like this. Of all the unions at State level, the South Australian unions appear to be the most organised. As I have said, my experience at the weekend demonstrated that unionists in one area after another are getting organised. South Australia has said that it is going to charge for data which might be necessary. I certainly hope that the Government has readjusted its costings on that basis. Obviously, New South Wales is extremely nervous. One is not too sure from day to day where Mr Unsworth himself stands but, as it is the next State to go to an election, Mr Hawke cannot rely totally on support from New South Wales. In Victoria the situation is interesting. The past three Australian Labor Party State Conferences have come out strongly against the Australia Card legislation. The Victorian Opposition has a private member's Bill before the Parliament prohibiting the Government from passing over the necessary documentation. The Government in Victoria has avoided a vote on this legislation. Obviously, although the Premier is not making public statements on the legislation, he knows that it is not just members of his extreme Left, people such as Jean McLean and Joan Coxsedge, who have come out against the legislation but that there is across the board concern and opposition. The Premier does not want to embarrass himself or his members of parliament, so the Government has avoided a vote on it. We must not forget that one of the first people out of the blocks in opposition to this legislation was the highest office holder of the Anglican Church of Australia, Sir John Grindrod, which demonstrates, as those of us who have been attending meetings in opposition to the card know, the sort of concern that exists in this sector. Perhaps we need to look a little more deeply at the reasons for this mounting opposition. Perhaps the Government can say, `We did have a double dissolution on the ID card; we did go to an election on it'. However, I do not believe that it can claim a mandate on it. I point to one reason why it cannot. Obviously, one of the reasons why people on the ALP side of politics did not oppose the card vociferously during the election campaign was their fear that the Opposition parties might very well capitalise on it, benefit from it and win government. It is always very difficult during elections campaigns for people to choose and vote on one issue. In the majority of cases people do not do so. They consider a number of issues. People have a range of concerns. They are placed in a very difficult position. That is why the Government cannot claim a mandate on this single issue. It certainly was not a single issue election campaign. With the election out of the way and a Labor government having been re-elected we are now seeing the mobilisation of Labor Party voters and members and unionists, as I have already mentioned. One of the clearest run-downs on the sort of thinking that is going on has come to me from the Law Council of Australia. In its correspondence to me, and no doubt to other senators, the Law Council has pointed out that to date it has not taken a position on a national identification system but has opposed the Australia Card legislation in its present form. However, its most recent correspondence indicates that that position is under review and notes some of the reasons why. Some of those reasons are the same reasons why the general community is coming out in opposition to the card after having received more information. The Law Council says that it is concerned that such a system of identification could easily be expanded for use by all government departments and other data banks using the same identification numbers. We are reminded that in original submissions, and indeed in the Government's original submission to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, a whole range of government departments were laying claim to being part of this system. The Departments of Community Services and Health and the Department of Social Security, and of course the Australian Taxation Office, are involved in this legislation. But I have a list stating that the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the department dealing with housing and construction services, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Institute of Health, the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and so on-a range of departments-are interested in becoming part of this system, and this is a genuine concern. This legislation can be amended, changed, expanded or extended by any future government, and that is a major concern. The Law Council also views as objectionable the requirement that persons prove their identity before they can enter into a considerable number of quite common transactions and activities. The Council believes that this is: an unwarranted restriction on the freedom that individual Australians have, and should have, to engage in ordinary activities and transactions. The Law Council also notes that: the Government's attitude seems somewhat contradictory. I think this comment is very important. On the one hand, the Law Council argues: the information contained on the Australia Card and in the central data base will be limited and of such a character that there need be no concern about its being vulnerable to unauthorised access. On the other hand, the Government sees a need to establish a complex and costly system to protect that information-a system said to be the most secure available. It might be asked why such tight security is needed if the information held is as insignificant as the Government asserts. Of course we know that it is not. It is information about the personal and intimate details of people's lives and of course we do need strong protection. We need protection from the sorts of data bases already in existence in both the public and the private sectors. As the Australian Democrats have often said, we believe that the first job that this Government should be doing is bringing in privacy legislation, a data protection agency and a surveillance authority in this area. That must be done. A private member's Bill was introduced during the last Parliament and this is an issue that we intend to pursue doggedly. Other points have been made by the Law Council, but that is a summary of some of the points which are causing people concern. Indeed, the Government itself is concerned, particularly on that latter point, and there is ample evidence of this in a number of media comments. For instance, on 14 August Senator Ryan admitted in the Australian that further safeguards are needed. We are told that the Australia Card legislation will be altered after a joint sitting. We are asked to trust the Government-a government which has realised, after more thought and consideration, information and expert advice, that indeed this Bill which we are being asked to pass is flawed. There are concerns about it, and even the Government has come to understand some of them. This weekend the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) said that the Government might in fact recognise that it might have to consider alternatives. It seems to me that we have here a problem of learning curves. Obviously the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), Senator Ryan and Dr Blewett have a considerably slower learning curve than has Mr Bowen. I think the activity that is going on in the community might just jog them along a little bit and with any luck they will get on the same learning curve as the Deputy Prime Minister and we will see this legislation disappear forever. There are a number of other particular concerns about the legislation, one of which has perhaps been sufficiently canvassed in detail; and that is the concern about the authenticity of cards from a number of points of view. One of the first concerns is the dependence for that authenticity and legitimacy on a high integrity initial base in the Offices of Births, Deaths and Marriages. I read with some interest at the weekend an item from Anne Summers in the Times on Sunday-she has lived in the United States of America for the last couple of years-pointing out that she has an identification number which she has to use for a number of purposes, such as opening a bank account and other cash transactions of that kind. She concludes her article by saying `I cannot see what the fuss is about'. Perhaps one of the reasons for this fuss also comes from what is happening in the United States, and this was mentioned in the Australian Financial Review last November. It contained information that a fake identity card could be obtained from a Times Square shop as at last November at a cost of $15 and, with a bit more difficulty and expense, a phoney birth certificate could be obtained for $27. That sort of concern followed comments made by Frank Costigan to the Joint Select Committee which looked at the prospect of this legislation, and is a genuine concern of people in the community. Senator Crowley has suggested that concerns about the administration of this legislation by the Health Insurance Commission are ill-founded. She assured us that the release of information in the McGoldrick case was authorised and therefore we should not be worried. But I have to say that, whether the release of that sort of private information, is accidental, authorised or corrupt, it does not alter the fact that an individual's privacy is something to which that individual has an inalienable right; and in all humanity it should not be the reason for its release and is quite irrelevant. I think people have a perfect right to be genuinely concerned about the prospect of the Health Insurance Commission being the major administrator of this program. I would like to make one contribution against the argument that if a person has nothing to hide he has nothing to lose. I do so by way of quoting one verse from a poem against the ID card by Les Murray-one of our foremost contemporary poets-which Peter Garrett used in his campaign against the card: `If you've nothing on your conscience'-any dero could shout Nonshense. Black folk could tell you how it used to feel to be licensed like a dog just to keep your kids, drink grog, cash a cheque or vote, but never be quite real. That perhaps answers the question to whether one has nothing to hide; at least it certainly answers it for me. I will be moving amendments, which have been circulated in the name of the Australian Democrats, to the Opposition amendment which we are debating along with the motion that the Bill be now read a second time. The Democrats feel it necessary to move these amendments for a number of reasons. We believe that this Bill should be referred to a standing committee of the Senate, which differs from the proposal of the Opposition to refer it to a select committee. From our point of view, it is important that this Bill be referred to a committee constituted for the purposes of the long term operation of the Senate and not specifically for this particular issue, particularly in terms of the composition of Government senators. We also believe that the reporting date, which the Opposition has suggested in its amendment as the first day of sitting in February-in other words, when we begin out sittings after the Christmas recess-is far too soon. In fact there is a history of Senate committees being forced to sit over the silly season. We do not believe that that gives adequate time for the community and concerned people to make their representations, not to mention the ability of senators involved to have their normal Christmas break and perhaps make adequate judgments. For instance, the original Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card was formed towards the end of November and its hearings were conducted during December, January and February. The hearings were extended to April and then to May. The Committee reported in May. I was a member of the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation, most of the hearings of which were held in January. A number of community groups felt that certainly there was not adequate time for them to prepare their submissions. This issue is too important to the Australian Democrats to be rushed through whichever committee it is referred to. The Australian Democrats amendments seek to add to the terms of reference that are set out in the Opposition's amendment. They do so for a number of reasons. We have looked at, and taken account of, areas of duplication. We have added to paragraph (j) of the Opposition's amendment the question of the differentials in penalties which apply to breaches by private citizens, corporations and the authority itself. We think it is important that that be done. We are also proposing that the Opposition's paragraph (l) be changed in recognition of the fact that no overseas country has the same system. We believe that the committee which will look at this legislation should draw on the experience of comparable countries which have had proposals for such a system before them. As I said, we have added a number of points which we believe need to be in the terms of reference, and perhaps I should just refer to one or two of them. We believe that the committee should examine the implications for the system if a significant number of people fall within the activities for which the card and a number are required. Of course, we would be talking here of general day to day activities of the vast majority of people, particularly adult people, in the community. We think the implications of a significant number of people refusing to have the card and number should be known. This is not a light-hearted suggestion. There are people in the community at the moment who are saying that they will in fact take up the offer of the Government, which is in the legislation, to make possession of the card voluntary. Of course, this is fiction. However, that fiction may very well be tested by a number of people in the community. We believe that that matter needs to be considered. We also believe that there should be a comparison of the costs and benefits of the Government proposal, the Joint Select Committee proposal and a number of others. I seek leave to move several amendments together. Leave granted. Senator POWELL —I move: (1) Leave out the words ``this Bill be referred to a select committee, the powers and composition of which be contained in a subsequent resolution,'' insert: ``this Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for inquiry and report, upon the establishment of that committee or, if a committee of that name is not established, to a committee specified in a subsequent resolution,''. (2) Paragraph (f) of the proposed terms of reference, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(f) assess the direct cost to the private sector in establishing and maintaining the system;''. (3) Paragraph (j) of the proposed terms of reference, at end of paragraph, insert: ``, including the differential in penalties which applies to breaches of the legislation by the Authority and breaches by private citizens and corporations''. (4) Paragraph (1) of the proposed terms of reference, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(1) examine the experience of comparable countries in the adoption or rejection of an ID card system such as the one proposed, this comparison to include the USA, West Germany, Canada, Netherlands, France, UK, Austria, Belgium, Italy, Denmark;''. (5) Paragraph (m) of the proposed terms of reference, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraphs: (m) assess the constitutionality of the Government's proposed Australia Card and personal identification system; (n) examine the implications for the system if a significant number of people whose activities fall within those for which the card and number are required refuse to apply for the card; (o) consider the financial implications and administrative delays in the public and private sectors in complying with the system and the impact of this on Australia's economic situation, consideration of these matters to include assessments of the system's impact on transactions specifically affected by the legislation-e.g. auction sales; (p) assess the likelihood of more cards and numbers being issued than there are entitled card-holders (as has already occurred with Medicare cards) and the implications of this if the Medicare number is to be used in the Australia Card system; (q) determine the need for privacy protection legislation and a data protection agency and what form such protection should take, with particular reference to legal remedies for such matters as refusal to correct incorrect data; failure on the part of the Authority to perform its functions; and compensation for damage suffered; (r) make a comparison of the costs and benefits of the Government proposal with Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card majority recommendation for using a high-integrity tax file number to combat tax and social security fraud; (s) assess the appropriateness of linking sensitive personal information such as medical data with a system which is designed to address financial matters; (t) examine the constitutional implications of the legislation's use of terminology such as `The Authority' and `card-subjects' in a common law country such as Australia; (u) examine the problem of distinguishing between requiring someone to produce a card as a means of identification (which attracts a penalty if it is unauthorised) and `requesting' someone to do so; (v) determine the adequacy of protections against misuse of the unique personal identification number, as distinct from misuse of the card; (w) examine the appropriateness of fees being charged for card-subjects to have access to their details on the register, other than the annual inspection permitted under the legislation; (x) assess the likelihood of increased access to the register by government departments and the private sector in the future; (y) examine the ease of linkage between information on the register and information on the computer files of other government departments, agencies and private sector bodies where those bodies use the unique personal identification number for purposes required under the legislation; (z) assess the usefulness of the card and numbering system in achieving the objectives claimed for it, with particular reference to the cash economy, organised crime and large-scale tax evasion; (za) examine any matters relevant to the preceding; and''. (6) At end of the proposed terms of reference, add the following paragraph: ``(zb) present a final report on or before the first day of sitting in March 1988.''. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(8.44) —This is not the first time that I have spoken on the Australia Card legislation although it is the first time that I have spoken on the legislation in the new Parliament. However, I had the opportunity of speaking last week on a matter of public importance which was raised by Senator Puplick who led for the Opposition. I want to say once again that I oppose this Government's proposal for a card numbering system. Instead of being persons we will all end up being numbers. I support Senator Puplick's amendment and the reference of this Bill to a committee. The Government claims that because the National and the Liberal parties oppose this legislation we are friends of tax cheats and all the people who defraud the social security system and that we want to protect them. I consider that that is absolute rot. Frank Costigan, the former Royal Commissioner who headed the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, said that the Australia Card will not and should not work to catch tax or social welfare cheats. He said that the major areas of tax fraud could be attacked in different ways under existing laws and that the Australian Taxation Office was already beginning to receive a lot of lost revenue. I do not believe that this Government has a mandate to inflict this most un-Australian piece of legislation on our country. Statistics have a way of being used and abused for the sake of an argument, but one set of statistics clearly shows that this Government has no mandate to implement the most dangerous threat to privacy ever seen in this freedom loving country. Once again, I remind the Senate, as I reminded it last week, that more Australians voted for the anti-identity card parties during the election than for the Australian Labor Party. The anti-ID card parties won more votes than the ALP in every State and Territory except for the Australian Capital Territory. For the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to suggest that the return of his Government is proof positive that Australians want the ID card shows that he has lost touch with the average Australian. During the election campaign I put out quite a number of Press releases about opposition to the ID card. As a matter of fact, I believe that many members did likewise. However, the media just did not seem to want to know about it. I am quite sure that most honourable senators have been bombarded with letters and petitions from people who are very concerned about this ID card proposal. We can gain knowledge of that from the number of petitions and signatures that have been presented to the Senate and to the other place. People talk about what the ID card is to be used for, who will have access to it and what one will not be able to do without it. There are the very real concerns about the ability of hackers to infiltrate the system. The people who have signed petitions have not been organised by slick lobby groups. They are men and women who are very worried about the direction in which this socialist Government is taking them. I believe that the Government has failed to demonstrate convincingly that the ID card will achieve its stated aims. I want to put on record some of the facts about the ID card. This card will not stop tax fraud or evasion. The Tax Office has said this. Indeed, it is a known fact that tax evasion occurs in the cash economy and the ID card will not stop that. The ID card will not stop welfare cheats. The Department of Social Security has said that certainly the welfare cheats will not be caught through the ID card. In fact, the Department of Social Security says that it will not accept the card on its own and that there must be some other proof of identity for social security purposes. The ID card will not catch illegal immigrants. The Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs has told us that. Organised crime will benefit from having ID cards because they will be able to forge them. Most importantly, many people in Australia believe that civil liberties and privacy are threatened by the ID card. I was interested to read in one of the papers just a couple of days ago that Mr Allan Nelson, a leading private investigator in Brisbane, said that there is no such thing as private and secure information. He said that there is nothing he could not find out about anybody. He said: Don't worry about computers. It's the people in charge of the computers who spill the beans. One has to rely on the people who are operating the computers. On 2 May 1985 Mr Justice Michael Kirby said: What is at stake is nothing less than the nature of our society and the power and the authority of the state in relation to the individual. The concept of an ID card is a blatant attempt on the part of a socialist government to impose a Big Brother watchdog system on all Australians and give the Federal Government even more control over private people's lives. In other words, it would become a type of internal passport. We all know that this happens in communist countries where they have these documents. The Toowoomba Chronicle on Friday, 11 September, contained an interesting editorial which I should like to quote: Three-quarters of a century ago, United States President-elect Woodrow Wilson reminded his countrymen that liberty has never come from government. The history of liberty, he said, was a history of resistance . . . of limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it. Such fundamental truths do not change with the passage of time, and Wilson's words are just as apposite today in regard to the burgeoning national debate on the Hawke Labor Government's proposed universal identity card. Mr Wilson's 1912 comments are fitting in the context of the Australia Card debate because the Prime Minister and other Government backers of the card are seeking to win back dwindling public support with soothing words of reassurance that they will act to protect individual privacy. The catch is that they say they will take such action after the card becomes a legislative fact. The Government is pressing ahead with the proposal, despite the fact that it was rejected by the majority report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card which was tabled in the House of Representatives on 8 May 1986. We must also remember that the costs to all taxpayers are excessive with the introduction of the ID card. Its implementation would cost taxpayers around $1 billion and 2,000 new public servants would be required for its administration. In addition, the private sector would have to spend about $2 billion to change systems to comply with the card's requirements, and the banks also have said that they will be put to a lot of extra expense to change their system of accounting. New personal penalties and fines will be used to try to ensure the ID card's complete acceptance. It is appropriate to consider some of the heavy fines and penalties that are to be imposed. The Government has said that some of these are wrong, but they have been listed on a number of occasions. If a person fails to report the loss of an ID card within 21 days, he or she will be fined $500. If an employer-this includes the employment of a baby sitter or somebody who comes to work on a property-fails to see, record and report to the Government the employee's ID number, he or she could be fined $20,000. If an employer hires a cardless person, he or she will be fined $20,000. If a banker, stockbroker, accountant, lawyer or real estate agent fails to see and record an ID number when a person enters into a financial transaction, he or she will be fined $20,000. These certainly are very large amounts of money. If one destroys or defaces one's ID card and cannot prove that it was accidental, one will be imprisoned for two years, fined $5,000 or both. If one fails to attend a compulsory conference ordered by the ID card agency, one will be fined $1,000 and/or imprisoned for six months. So it goes on and on. Democracies closest to our own such as Britain, the United States of America and Canada have all rejected ID card proposals. Even the director of the Swedish Data Protection Agency has resigned in protest after 12 years in the job. One wonders why he did resign. The gentleman concerned, Mr Jan Freese, resigned because of the failure of the board and the Data Act to stop: . . . our shrinking privacy and the extremely new vulnerability of the computerised society. I continue to read what he said: The Data Inspection Board, acting unanimously, found in its annual report this year that privacy protection had continued to become still more limited. The Swedes had been more or less stripped to their souls. In the United States a Congressional report released in June this year says that the United States Privacy Act is failing to give privacy protection to United States Government Records. It is this privacy aspect that is of paramount concern in this debate. When the Australia Card was first debated, 17 government agencies lobbied for access to the central identity register. The decision by the Government to allow three departments access has not fooled anyone. Once the card has been introduced, no doubt other departments will subsequently be allowed access. It was interesting to hear Mr Ben Humphreys, the new Minister for Veterans' Affairs, speak about going one step further and adding veterans' affairs information on the card. I believe that is an aspect we should look at. Senator Ryan has virtually admitted that the ID computer system will not be secure against hackers who wish to gain access to our personal information. Indeed, during the senator's recent trip around the country, she was interviewed on a Brisbane radio station. The interviewer asked her if the system would be absolutely safe from hackers wishing to obtain personal information for whatever reasons. Senator Ryan was unable to give a categorical assurance. I imagine this would have been the case on other occasions also. We know that even within the Labor movement there are those opposed to the card's introduction. We have read a good deal about them. In fact, there was comment in the newspapers recently about what Senator Bolkus said on the subject. He said today that he had been misquoted. The Victorian ALP rejected the proposal for a national identity card at its State conference in October 1985. The South Australian ALP opposed a national identity system in 1985. Senator Schacht informed the Senate that in 1986 it changed its mind. I heard him make that comment when he made a speech the other day. The Premier of New South Wales, Mr Unsworth, has warned the Federal Government that it should drop plans for the Australia Card because of the widespread and growing opposition. Mr Unsworth told the Prime Minister that he should re-evaluate the proposal and take it back to the drawing board. Well, Mr Unsworth suggests it should go back to the drawing board, but I believe that the Bill and the idea of the ID card should be thrown out completely. Certainly I support Senator Puplick's amendment that the Bill should be referred to a committee. We do not want an identity card in which we will all be numbered; all the numbers of course will be linked. One of the prime purposes of the Australia Card Bill is supposedly to crack down on welfare cheats. Yet on the Ray Martin show recently Senator Ryan admitted that an ID card would not prohibit obtaining employment. So if a person who is on the dole wants to go off and do some seasonal work, bearing in mind that they will not have to produce an ID card, then they will still be able to work under a false name and collect their unemployment benefit or invalid pension, or even both. Under the legislation to get a government ID card people will have to get themselves photographed, attend an interview, provide proof of identity and sign documents. I believe this will be an enormous logistical exercise-and an inconvenient one, particularly for those who live in remote areas. I do not know why we need this card as there seems to be so many different and varying cards for many and varied reasons that we all have to hold for one reason or another. We have a Medicare card, we all have a tax file number, as is obvious every time one puts in a tax return, and we have bankcards. If there is not enough money to pay bills, bankcards come in very handy. We all have a number for our bank accounts and, of course, in Queensland we have a driving licence with our photograph on it as well. I believe that we really have plenty of cards which we carry around and that we can prove our identity to people who need to know exactly who we are. Parents of children under 16 years have to hold ID cards on behalf of their children. Each parent may hold a card on behalf of his or her children and when they reach the age of 16 those children can get a card in their own right, the previous card supposedly having been cancelled. Of course, there is the possibility of a 16-year-old effectively having three cards in his or her name. The opportunity for bureaucratic bungling and duplication is enormous. The Health Insurance Commission concedes that there are about 20,000 excess Medicare cards in circulation as it is. There have been occasions when for some reason or other people have not been issued with a Medicare card at all. The Confederation of Australian Industry has claimed that the ongoing costs to both the private and public sectors of complying with the proposed national identity card system would far exceed its benefits in recouped tax revenue and diminished social security fraud. Mr John Fowler of the Small Business Association has stated that the Australia Card will cost every small businessman $2,000 in unproductive time when it is introduced. The National Party of Australia rejects the identity card. Not only will the card cost both taxpayers and the private sector billions of dollars to set up but it will also result in the greatest ever intrusion into people's private lives and will not achieve its stated aims of cracking down on tax avoidance, social security fraud, organised crime or illegal immigration. The Government has not been able to guarantee that there will not be massive abuse and duplication of the card. In my opinion the key factor in this whole debate centres on freedom-the gradual erosion of the freedoms we have enjoyed in this country. The question really comes down to whether we are going to let the Government of this country become so all important that our freedom to choose not to have an identity card is completely ignored. Of course, the Prime Minister says that it is not compulsory to have an ID card. I mentioned earlier all the fines and penalties that have been listed if one is not able to produce an ID card when asked. It might not be compulsory but it will be very difficult to operate without it. The people of Australia will not stand for it and I do not believe they should. I believe, along with millions of Australians who have been to protest meetings, signed petitions and written letters to their senators and members, that the Australia Card-I believe it should be called the ID card-should be rejected. In the meantime I certainly support the reference to a Senate select committee moved by Senator Puplick. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(9.04) —Major cracks are beginning to appear in the Government's presentation of the Australia Card because all around Australia people are turning against this proposal. They are turning in their droves and even supporters are now asking, `What are these unknowns? What are these quantified amendments that the Government says it will introduce if the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 3] is passed?'. There are many people on the Government benches who are denying their consciences and true beliefs by voting for this identity system. I invite them now to be true to themselves. Even the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), the second most senior Minister in the Government, said at the weekend that, if the Senate could come up with a reasonable alternative to the ID card, the Government really would be prepared to look at it. I believe that the Senate should rise to this occasion and to this challenge because a system of high integrity tax file numbers can be established which, coupled with a modified cash transactions reports Act, could tidy up the system without invading the privacy and liberty of all Australians. I quote from the minutes of evidence given by the Australian Taxation Office to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts in relation to a proposed computer acquisition. The Taxation Commissioner, Mr Boucher, said: . . . use of a high integrity number of one kind or another is somewhat central to a number of the things we hope to achieve from this project. That project was a $700m computer installation. A major plank of this Government's justification for the Australia Card has been the amount of money that the Australian Taxation Office will actually recoup. Earlier this year it was revealed that this $700m new computer system, to be installed by the Tax Office, would mean a great deal of recoupment. The benefits of this new equipment will be applied to income tax return processing, income tax matching, income audit systems and automated collection systems. We are all aware of the Auditor-General's criticisms of the Australian Taxation Office for its lack of matching and some of the other pitfalls. A lot of this has been put down to the fact that the Tax Office has been overworked, has had to work with antiquated systems and so on. But we are now allocating $700m to a sophisticated new computer installation that will achieve many of the purposes for which the Australia Card is designed. In effect, there is an element of double counting. If we spend this $700m to improve income tax return processing and matching-one of the criticisms, after all, was the lack of matching of interest, dividends and so on-and to introduce an automated collection and audit system, the Government's statement that there will be a taxation revenue benefit from the introduction of an identity card is very misleading. I submit that there is an element of double counting. In the report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card there is a quotation from American Supreme Court Justice Brandeis. He said: The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachments of men of zeal, well meaning, but without understanding. I believe those words really encapsulate the reasons why this Senate, this House, this Parliament and all concerned citizens of Australia should reject this Australia Card. It will be enormously costly; it will be insidious; and, despite its proposed name, it will be un-Australian. After lengthy investigation and deliberation the majority of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card rejected the proposal. The Committee found that the card failed to adequately address the major problems which were to be overcome by the introduction of a national identity system, namely, tax evasion, welfare fraud and illegal immigration. The Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, Mr Peter Duncan, admitted in a written answer in the House of Representatives: Dedicated data systems can still be compromised by someone physically tapping into an exchange or transmission line. This answer was obviously provided for the Minister by experts who knew the true situation. Notwithstanding that, Mr Duncan's honesty is in complete contrast to that of some of his superior Ministers. Those who are technically qualified in such subjects therefore advised Mr Duncan that the identity card system could still be compromised, yet the Government, in the wake of popular opinion, expert advice from public servants and others and the outcry to the effect that the card is blatantly wrong, still says that it will bulldoze this legislation through the Parliament without giving the people of Australia the opportunity to voice their view. One of the identity card system's most fundamental shortcomings is its failure to tackle the problem of the cash economy. On the contrary, it provides a positive incentive for more and more Australians to direct their activities to this part of the cash economy. But it is not wholly an identity problem, and on this point I differ from my colleague on the other side, Senator Crowley. The identity card will not prevent large-scale tax avoiders from defrauding the revenue. Mr Frank Costigan, QC-perhaps this country's foremost authority on organised crime-is on the record as saying that the identity card will not stop large-scale tax avoidance, simply because it is based on the false assumption that evasion is primarily a result of false identity. The Australian Labor Party fails to acknowledge that feature and, time and time again, that comes through in Labor members' speeches. The point is that the big fish will continue to evade their tax. There are far more effective ways of combating the significant problems of taxation fraud, welfare cheating and illegal immigration. These alternatives may be implemented without recourse to a national identity system that poses a threat to the privacy and liberty to which we in Australia have become accustomed. The costs involved simply do not equate with the so-called benefits. The original estimate of the costs involved was $1,046m over 10 years, but that figure was quickly revised downwards to $733m. Whatever the true figure might be, it must be remembered that cost estimates in this place and in government have an uncanny tendency to blow out. The Government's Australia Card proposal will involve the employment of more than 2,150 new public servants and the upgrading of existing Medicare offices and the opening and staffing of 42 new offices-all in the name of fiscal restraint. Many costs have been omitted from the Government's estimates. There has been no allowance for the replacement of capital equipment and no costs have been included for private sector compliance. Senator Puplick —Or State governments. Senator WATSON —Or even State governments. What are the benefits? As the costs of the implementation of the scheme are a matter for some dispute so, too, are the benefits. Revenue estimates relating to the expected gains from the implementation of the system received from the Australian Taxation Office are highly questionable. It has been revealed that they were made on a `qualitative assessment of how tax evaders operate'. What an unusual phrase. I submit that it is not very scientific. Surely it is not a sound foundation on which to base a claim that the Australia Card is the best way to solve our tax and welfare fraud problems. The Government would be better advised to look at more ways of tightening procedures within existing departments and to shelve its plans for yet another arm of the bureaucracy. It has been said, and I believe correctly, that the introduction of the Australia Card system will solve our current taxation, welfare and immigration problems, but that is just like using a jackhammer to crack a nut-in other words, it is excessive in the extreme. There is growing opposition to the Australia Card. That opposition has spread widely and quickly in recent months as more and more Australians have become aware of the reality that it is not necessary. Public meetings have been called, lobby groups formed and petitions circulated. Whole communities have joined in opposition to the Australia Card. many hours have been volunteered to the task of persuading the Government to reconsider its ill-conceived proposal, and the voices of these people must and will be heard. Early last week I tabled a petition from 5,702 Tasmanians opposed to the card and, on average, I have added hundreds of names daily. Some of my colleagues are saving them up so that later in the month they can submit petitions from 10,000 to 20,000 or even 30,000 people. I think that petitions containing 6,000 signatures were lodged today in the Senate. Many of my colleagues have presented similar petitions rejecting the introduction of the Australia card. Senator Knowles —There is one from 23,000 people. Senator WATSON —I am told that one petition alone has 23,000 signatures which have yet to be submitted to the Senate. I thank Senator Knowles. An ever-increasing number of Australians from all walks of life do not want the Australia Card. The Government would have us believe that those who oppose the card are tax cheats and welfare frauds. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) went so far as to classify them as a bunch of eccentrics. Let us see who is among their ranks: the Primate of the Anglican Church of Australia, Archbishop Sir John Grindrod; Mr Justice Michael Kirby; Mr Frank Costigan, QC; and the distinguished author, Morris West. Eminent Australians from all walks of life have joined in this chorus against the Australia Card. Even the New South Wales Premier, Mr Unsworth, has been having second thoughts about the value of the Government's proposal; yet our Prime Minister says that he knows best. He will persevere and bulldoze this measure through. I submit that Mr Hawke is in danger of losing contact with the Australian people-something which he has claimed as very special to himself. In his high office, he is becoming increasingly remote from the aspirations and needs of ordinary Australians, particularly if he chooses to ignore the flood of opposition to the card. One of the problems with the legislation is clause 37. This aspect has not received enough public exposure. Clause 37 requires visitors to Australia to hold a visitor's version of the identity card. A man or a woman touring Australia for less than six weeks will need not only to have a valid passport, or in some cases a visa, but to give further details of his or her name, home address, address in Australia, et cetera. If tourists choose to stay longer than six weeks-which is a common practice if people are visiting several States and, say, central Australia and the Great Barrier Reef-they will be required to present themselves at an identify office and have their photograph taken, a number allocated, specimen signature recorded, their eligibility for Medicare benefits and for work assessed and recorded and they will be given an expiry date. The Labor Government praises itself for encouraging and supporting the vital tourism industry, but it proposes a totalitarian measure, monitoring everybody making an extended visit here. One would have thought that pure logic makes it clear that the Government should encourage tourists on longer stays, but the effect of clause 37 will be not only to sour short-term visitors' experience of this so-called `free' Australia but to give a greater incentive to tourists to leave Australia before the six-week limit is up. Clause 37 is only one of many aspects that make the Bill unAustralian, insidious and bad legislation and give further reasons why Parliament should reject the legislation. What about the mandate for the card? Mr Hawke and Senator Ryan claim that the last election gave them the mandate they required to introduce the identity card. But I and many others beg to differ, and there is a growing chorus of people around Australia who also beg to differ. In the weeks preceding the election very little was said about the identity card. In fact, Senator Walsh, while visiting my home state of Tasmania, is on record as saying that the Australia Card `would not be a high priority on Labor's return to government'. Yet, what do we find? We find ourselves in this chamber debating the issue in Budget week, the first week back. We should not be duped by the promises to amend the legislation once it is passed. The Prime Minister is studiously avoiding revealing the nature of these elusive amendments, and so is Senator Ryan, the Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health, who is responsible for this Bill. In fact, there are no guarantees that would be acceptable. In the interim, Parliament is being forced to pass what the Government has tacitly admitted is a piece of imperfect legislation. Should this be the function of an Australian Parliament? Should it be the function of the Australian Senate to pass legislation which is deficient, which is imperfect? I submit that we are going down the wrong track if we choose to pursue this course of action. Where is our integrity if we decide to follow that course? By way of contrast, last week the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Steve Hatton, announced that Territory voters would have the opportunity in either 1988 or 1989 to vote at a referendum on whether they supported statehood for the Northern Territory. This announcement may not seem to be directly related to the Bill that we are considering, but I am submitting it by way of contrast. The difference is that although the Hatton Government is keen to pursue statehood, and it recently won a further term, it does not share the arrogance of our Prime Minister, Bob Hawke. The Northern Territory voters will be asked to put their views on this vital issue. In other words, Mr Hawke assumes a mandate for this Bill but, unlike the Country Liberal Party Government in Darwin, this Government is not prepared to ask the opinion of the electors. What could be more democratic, more honest or more straightforward? Any student studying elementary political science will see through the Prime Minister's so-called mandate. It is a charade. Governments are elected on platforms, on policies. The Prime Minister mentioned not one word about the Australia Card in his election speech. He has no mandate for this Bill and therefore it must be rejected not only by the Senate but also by the Australian people. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(9.23) —I believe that any issue that brings together the Right and the Left must have some substance to it. I believe that such a coalition is imperative if we are to defeat the proposal for the Australia Card-a proposal that will make us the world leader in data surveillance and thus open to abuse by the state in a way so far without precedent. Two key questions have to be asked in relation to the proposed card will it deal with the concerns its introduction is supposed to meet, that is, tax cheating and welfare frauds, and can the ordinary citizen trust the state or the bureaucracy with a system that gives it such enormous potential power? The card is allegedly meant to deal with various tax evasion schemes, dole cheating, illegal immigration and non-disclosure of income. We are told that the card would generally assist government agencies to carry out their functions more effectively, aid the fight against organised crime and drug trafficking and, in the longer term, rationalise the many government identification systems currently in operation. It would also simplify dealings with government for all Australians. Great play is made of John and Jane Citizen's dislike of social security frauds and tax cheats, of illegal migrants stealing jobs from Australians, and of the Government getting a lot more of the income that is due to it-$800m annually within three years of the card's introduction, or so we are told, although there can be no cast iron guarantees about that. The Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, which delivered its report in May 1986, rejected all proposals for the issuing of identity cards and proposed an alternative scheme based on extending the use of the existing tax file number, combined with means of increasing the integrity of that number. The Joint Select Committee majority warned that if the Government's proposal that 13 agencies have access to the Australia Card Register were adopted, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to stop the uses of the card extending, given the wide range of initial uses. This then, becomes the crux of the matter. There are alternative ways of dealing with the issues that Australian citizens are justifiably concerned about. I would like to know why the Government does not follow up some of those alternatives, in particular the ways in which some of its millionaire or even billionaire friends pay such extraordinarily low taxes. What is so dangerously new about the card is the concept of one card and computerised number linking together all the existing cards and numbers. The one number which will act as a linkage number will be the key to the system, and the reason why so many Australians are opposed to it. How will Australian citizens know whether they can trust the government of the day and the bureaucracy not to abuse the power which is afforded them by centralised computerised information on every citizen in Australia, along with visitors staying more than a few weeks? I was interested that Senator Watson referred to that, and I agree that it has not been given enough attention. In that regard I also question the status of United States service people. This is a matter that has not been raised but I believe it is worth consideration. Such people are here for more than the six weeks that is afforded tourists. Would they have to be processed, put on file and use an Australia Card if they conducted any financial transactions in this country? Amongst the United States personnel is an unspecified number who are members of the National Security Agency (NSA), intelligence personnel, along with many members of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), including the Director of Operations at Pine Gap. Would such spies have ID cards? If not, why not? Surely they would not come into the category of diplomatic immunity. I do not see why they, as spies working for a foreign government, should have immunity, and I very much doubt whether members of the NSA and the CIA would be willing carriers of an Australian identity card. Various conservative politicians call the card the Moscow Card but the Soviets would be envious of our system if it were ever introduced, as would other countries such as South Africa and even some Western democracies. We know perfectly well that bureaucracies are not geared to the protection of the rights of the individual. They are geared to the promotion of their own systems. We often hold up Sweden as the example of a highly controlled welfare capitalist democratic society, but even there, Jan Freese, architect of Sweden's data protection laws and their chief enforcer since the 1970s, recently resigned because he felt the system was out of control. The Government chose to ignore the proposals of the majority of the Joint Select Committee and took up the minority report, though inexplicably selecting the Health Insurance Commission to operate the limited scheme of giving access to the data by three agencies: the Australian Taxation Office, the Department of Social Security and the Health Insurance Commission itself. It is quite obvious that other agencies will want access to this centralised information in this computer age. No amount of government legislation or threatened penalties will stop the abuse of such valuable data on every one of us. I am particularly concerned that government or private security agencies should be able to tap into the system, as they would presumably be sheltered by what is usually known as national security. If school students can break into the computer network of the United States Department of Defense, with all the penalties for tapping into such vital national security networks, why should not computer criminals or hackers get into a system here? There are other impracticalities too. Does the Government really think that 16 million of us can be smoothly identified and documented? Will we all get time off work to be processed? What will happen to those of us who cannot prove our identity to start with? There are many such individuals in Australia today, either born here or born overseas. What about our children? As soon as parents want their children to have a bank account, an option which many parents choose very early on in their children's lives, these children will have to have an ID card as well. Do we really want them given a number at birth and frequently photographed by and for the authorities as they grow and develop? Will we condemn our children to that unacceptable level of official interference in their private lives? Then there is the problem of lost cards. Six per cent of Medicare cards were lost or stolen in the first two years of operation-a total of 670,000 cards. We will have to carry the Australia Card around with us a lot more than we do the Medicare card. It will also cost a lot more to replace and we are not told who will pay the replacement costs. It is possible that thousands of people will somehow deliberately lose their cards as some tactic of resistance. The Government says that we do not have to have a card, which is quite ridiculous unless one happens to be an eccentric hermit living in the desert on fruit and honey and in perfect health; nor, apparently do we have to carry it all the time, although it is quite obvious that many people will carry it with them all the time. Predictably, quite a few will lose it as a result of carting it around, if they do not lose it at home. A person in authority or in a strong bargaining position could in effect require the card by rejecting all other identity documents. Teenagers will carry it to prove their age to get into bars or cinemas. Many individuals will simply not know the rules about when to produce it, who can demand it or the penalties for abuse. They will carry it around just to feel secure. Losing it could also cause acute distress to many old or insecure individuals. Another aspect that concerns me greatly is the work of community groups which will be hampered by their having to register with a government department before they can open a bank account. Arguably, Australia is already one of the most over-governed, over-regulated countries in the world. With the introduction of an identity card we run the risk of throttling our individual freedoms by pulling the red tape too tight. There are many justifiable fears about privacy. Six per cent of telephone subscribers pay not to have their names in the phone book. What will happen to a woman estranged from a violent husband who changes her name and address in order to start a new life and whose anonymity can be destroyed by any one of thousands of clerks who have access to the Australia Card Register? What will happen to the informer or political refugee who changes his or her identity to escape retribution? The First Secretary at the Swedish Embassy in Canberra said: It is quite easy to change your name in Sweden, but you can never change your number. Under the Australian system, access to a number will give someone the ability to know everything about a particular individual. If the system is controlled by thousands of public servants and their minions, can the Government really claim that the system is 100 per cent foolproof forever when all evidence from similar systems around the world indicates to the contrary? Given that a substantial number of Australian Labor Party members, trade unionists, parliamentarians and members of the public are against the idea of an Australia Card, we need to consider that public opinion in the last year has swung from 62 per cent in favour to only 50 per cent in favour and from 29 per cent against to 41 per cent against. I imagine that the numbers against the ID card are picking up day by day. I think we have a good chance of defeating it. Contrary to what the Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, would have us believe, it is not too late to stop the introduction of the ID card. It was not an election issue, although it was the paltry excuse given for the double dissolution. The fact that the ID card was hardly mentioned by the ALP during the election campaign was disgraceful. It proved that the ID card had little to do with the calling of the totally unnecessary, outrageously expensive and very boring election. What was even worse was the fact that members of the Opposition chose to ignore it also. It was an opportunity squandered. The public education campaign now being waged by community groups should have been part of electioneering for the Liberal Party of Australia, as I gather most of its members are opposed to the ID card. Senator Knowles —Did you mention it? Senator VALLENTINE —I certainly did-absolutely. Senator Knowles —When? Senator VALLENTINE —In my election speech, in the opening of my election campaign-- Senator Knowles —I did not see anything. Senator VALLENTINE —No, one would not have seen it in the media because not much was reported. Senator Knowles —I had the same problem. Senator VALLENTINE —Maybe we did share the same problem. It is up to the people to demonstrate clear opposition to the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 3]. It is with the people that power is vested; if only they will use it. The huge majority of Australians who want the Government to catch tax dodgers and welfare cheats want those things done by other means and, if necessary, they will demonstrate by non-violent civil disobedience. Masses of Australians will refuse to comply with the Government's orders to be processed and photographed. I will quote from two eminent jurists, James McClelland and Michael Kirby. In the Sydney Morning Herald last November James McClelland wrote: In the field of medicine a specific cure is sometimes discovered for a human malady, but which turns out to have such dangerous side effects that its use is rejected by the scientists who discovered it, or by the practitioners to whom it falls to dispense it. I believe the same considerations apply to the I.D. Card. Michael Kirby observed: What is at stake is nothing less than the nature of our society and the power and the authority of the state in relation to the individual. What he means is that, instead of a government being elected to serve the needs of the people, the government and its bureaucrats will become the people's masters. Instead of the government being accountable to the people, an individual will be accountable to the government from cradle to grave. I am very glad to be joining the Liberal Party, the National Party of Australia and the Australian Democrats on this issue, but, mostly, I am very pleased to join the hundreds of thousands-by now probably millions-of Australians who are strongly opposed to the ID card. A huge public meeting in Perth earlier this month demonstrated overwhelmingly that Australians will come out on an issue about which they feel very deeply. There is a street rally coming up in Perth this Wednesday, the 23rd, at lunchtime, which will no doubt demonstrate once again the massive opposition to the card. What is happening in the west is being mirrored all around the country as people are joining in public meetings and public demonstrations against this outrageous invasion of our civil liberties. It is not too late to oppose the Australia Card. We do not have to accept the view that the Government has a mandate on this matter. Such a significant issue as the identity card, which infringes on our civil liberties and goes to the very root of our parliamentary democracy, should be dealt with separately. Therefore I support the call for a referendum and I also support the call for a Senate committee to review thoroughly the identity card proposal along the lines suggested by the Australian Democrats. I also call on Australian people to write to all Labor parliamentarians-they need not bother with the rest of us who are already opposed to it-telling them that public civil disobedience will be committed if the Government presses on with this in its pig-headed fashion. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(9.36) —It is not often that I rise to support the peace senator from Western Australia, Senator Vallentine. But the Australian Democrats, the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia and those in the peace movement are all totally opposed to the introduction of an identity card. Senator Knowles —And half of the Labor Party. Senator BOSWELL —So is half of the Australian Labor Party. This is the fourth time that I have spoken against the introduction of an ID card. I am speaking tonight to confirm that I am opposed to the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 3]. I cannot understand why the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Robert Ray, who is normally regarded as a political animal, could fall for such a trap. If I ever I have seen a party on a losing board-- Senator Watson —We all make mistakes sometimes. Senator BOSWELL —We all make mistakes, but no one should be silly enough to make a mistake as large and as comprehensive as this one. I suppose that Senator Ray and the rest of the Labor Party are saying to themselves, `Well, I suppose we have two years to go and we can ride this one through'. But I say to Senator Ray and the other members of the Labor Party that, in 18 months time when people have to turn up at their friendly health insurance office to register, to be photographed and to sign forms, they will be within six months of an election and the smile will be well and truly taken off their faces. When the Australia Card is introduced every Australian will attend at his local Medicare branch for an appointment with an ID card public servant. Every Australian will be required to bring some proof of identification, have his photograph taken and sign various documents. The interview will last 10 to 15 minutes. With the way that public opinion is swinging now, no doubt by that time 90 per cent of the people will not be in favour of an identity card and people will leave it to the very last minute to go and get their identification number. There will be queues backed up around the block and people will be very annoyed. Their rage will be expressed in the ballot box. In the six months leading up to the election that rage will continue. I believe that the Labor Party will back down on this issue. We will see the biggest retreat since Napoleon left Russia and it will be led by Senator Ray. Senator Watson —And look at all the casualties. Senator BOSWELL —There will be a few casualties, too. Let us look as what will happen if the Labor Party is silly enough to carry through this threat to the Australian people. Without an Australia Card the public will be unable to open a bank account; start a new job; buy real estate or receive rental income; use Medicare or be admitted to a hospital; apply for any social security benefits; make investments; or deal with the Australian Taxation Office. We have heard all these things before ad nauseam. Yet I believe the public is only now starting to come around to seriously considering this terrible ID card that is going to be forced upon it. I believe that our duty as elected representatives is to safeguard the freedom and privacy that this nation has enjoyed for 200 years. We are the custodians and guardians of the freest country in the world, and it is our job to fight to protect that freedom, not to see a massive erosion of it on the eve of our Bicentenary. Those who surrender Australia's freedom in this House or the other place will not be treated lightly in the future. Everyone of us has a responsibility to see this nation as free when he leaves here-or freer if it is possible-than it was when he came here to represent the public, our constituents, in both Houses of Parliament. But if this Australia Card goes through we will have been negligent in our duty. Everyone of us will have failed his country, and I for one do not wish to have the responsibility for that laying on my head. Therefore, I will do everything that is possible to oppose this card. I will go out to rallies around Queensland every time I receive an invitation. There is uproar, confusion and panic in the community. I do not believe I have ever seen such a number of petitions flooding into this place from people who are concerned. I will suggest to the people who are concerned about the ID card that they write to, picket or otherwise contact Labor members of parliament. We will present the petitions; we will speak up against the ID card; but it is the Labor people who have to be convinced that they are in grave danger of being thrown out of office if this ID card goes through. Privacy is a volatile issue. Unless we have rigorous protection we will find that gradually, inch by inch, our privacy is eroded. I saw Senator Ryan the other night on television debating with a member of the Australian Privacy Foundation who suggested that the ID card was not secure. He had diagrams to illustrate his point. Senator Ryan told that person from the Privacy Foundation that those computer diagrams were old hat. She said that they had been considered by the ID card people but had been rejected. But what surprised me-it even floored me-was the answer Senator Ryan gave to that person's question: `Senator Ryan, what are you going to use?' Senator Ryan replied, `Well, that hasn't been decided as yet'. I am quite willing to get the transcript and show it to the members of the Labor Party. This was a case of a senior Minister responsible for the implementation of the Australia Card admitting that she does not know what data process will be used. Here we are in the Senate debating the matter for the third time. Obviously we are debating legislation that the Government has not fully considered. I suggest that the best way out for the Labor Party would be to scrap the whole thing and to start again. I believe that that is what will eventually happen. The majority of Australians are afraid and angry at the Government's explanations. They have not allayed their fears; they have been inadequate, and the opposition to the ID card is accelerating. I will give honourable senators an example of what we see coming from this legislation-perhaps not immediately, but gradually. As amendments to this Bill are added and as more government departments claim and receive access to the centralised database, this card could distort and restrict freedoms perhaps taken for granted in the post-war years. People are becoming terribly concerned. Let us examine this scenario of what could happen. Senator Aulich —They might march in the streets in Queensland if they can get a permit. Is that what you are saying? Senator BOSWELL —People are so concerned that they have taken to the streets and marched. Let me point out that people can march in the streets in Queensland as long as they get a permit from the traffic office. Senator Robert Ray —Your Deputy Leader said the other day that people could march only if your Government agrees on the issue. Senator BOSWELL —Organisations are permitted to march in the streets in Queensland if they go to the trouble of getting a permit from the appropriate department. But let me not become diverted on these minor issues. Let me address the problem in the time available to me. Let me take honourable senators through a scenario of what could happen, because I believe that this is of major importance. Let us consider a person who opens a bank account in September. The details accessed by his identity number will include how much money is put into that bank, on what day it is put in and the interest rate that applies to it. In October that person might fall ill and the identity number will enable access to information on the illness he has, which doctor is consulted and which drugs he is prescribed. He might decide to write a cheque for a donation to a special interest group whose activities he personally supports, but which he does not brag about. He could even be a member of the Labor Party. Access to this information may be available as well. Come December, he and his spouse may be having some family problems, so he formally enlists the assistance of a social worker or counsellor from the Department of Social Security. At a New Year's celebration he is having such a good time that he has one too many. He is charged with driving with a blood alcohol level of more than .05. Philosophically he pays for his mistake and never touches the stuff again. In February, his teenage son is in a group of youngsters arrested at a party where police find some marijuana hidden in the bathroom. He is eventually found not guilty as he did not know there were any drugs on the premises. March sees the Australian Taxation Office after him for extra tax, which only happened because he was given some bad advice regarding the claiming of deductions for expenses for some weekend work. He decides that one learns from one's mistakes and pays the money back even though it means that the next two mortgage payments for his home will be quite late. The average man is scared that all these details can be accessed by a centralised database, as an ID card or number would be used on at least one of each of these instances. Even though all of these things are quite common and ordinary and every family has its ups and downs, these details allow a comprehensive personal profile to be built up which could identify this person as a financial member of some organisation; as a person with a history of family problems, alcoholism and tax avoidance; as a person who had a son charged with drug offences; as a person with a poor credit history. And many other things could be included. This is what must be avoided at all costs. These things are not beyond the reach of possibility. One or more of them happen to many families. This is what terrifies me about the ID card-not the fact that it will not work. Mr Costigan has said that it will not restrict organised crime. The Department of Social Security has said that it will not stop social welfare fraud. It will not stop illegal immigration. It will cost $700m to implement. It will require 2,150 public servants. Those things are frightening. We should oppose the ID card for all those reasons. However, we can live with that. It is only a matter of financial mismanagement, something the Labor Party is very good at. What frightens me and what makes me want to fight the introduction of this card more than anything is the fact that it will carry a person's financial history and profile on a silicon chip that can be called up at the push of a button by some Canberra bureaucrat. That is completely unAustralian. It is what we must oppose. A number of other speakers wish to make their contribution on this very important issue. I certainly do not want to take up all the time of the Senate. There is a very comprehensive speakers list. Senator Knowles —There are very few Labor senators on it, though. Senator BOSWELL —Yes, very few Labor senators want to speak on the ID card because in their own minds they are opposed to it. We have seen the Labor Lawyers come out and oppose the card. We have seen a number of State ALP conferences oppose it. We saw Senator Georges make a courageous stand in the Senate. He had to resign from the Labor Party because of his principles after nearly 20 years in the Senate and probably a lot longer in the Labor Party. Senator Georges is a man who stood up for his principles and resigned. I have never admired Senator Georges's politics but I have always admired his principles. He could give every member of the Labor Party a lesson on principles. We have seen so many people on the Labor side of politics come out publicly and oppose the card. Yet, pigheadedly, Labor Party members plough on like a bunch of lemmings going over a cliff. This debate will not end tonight or tomorrow night. It will go on until there is a joint sitting of Parliament, maybe in six months time. By that time public opposition will have built up to a frenzy. Sixty to seventy per cent of people will be opposed to this legislation in six months time. Then there is the problem of how to get people to take out a card. The legislation does not force people to take out a card. It merely invites people to apply for a card. There do not appear to be any penalties in the legislation if one does not apply for a card. There are penalties if one has a card, loses it and does not report it missing. Tonight I will investigate the clause of the legislation which merely says that members of the public are invited to apply for a card. Senator Aulich —Don't you understand that that is the basis of it? If you want to get government benefits you show your card. If you want to go without them that is fine. Senator BOSWELL —I note the interjection by the senator from Tasmania but I do not see how one can survive without a card. Without a card one cannot get medical attention, one cannot get a job and one cannot apply for social welfare benefits. The card is really an internal passport for all Australians. The Government may have made a mistake. It may have given the public a loophole in the legislation's drafting by merely stating that people are invited to apply for a card. If one does not take up that invitation there do not appear to be any penalties involved. There are penalties if, once one receives a card, one loses it or defaces it, but there do not appear to be any penalties if one does not receive it. I am opposed to the ID card. I will fight it until the last breath in my body. I urge all Australians to do likewise. (Quorum formed) Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(9.58) —A matter of such importance as this needs a detailed and lengthy examination. It is unfortunate that the examination so far given this legislation, the Australia Card Bill 1986, on two occasions in this place has nonetheless not deterred the Government from pressing on with it. I would like to draw attention to some elements of that examination. In particular, I refer to clear evidence given to the Senate that the Bill is defective in various areas. The Government has admitted in correspondence to the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills that the legislation is defective, yet it continues to press on with legislation which it knows needs amendment, which it has refused to amend for purely cosmetic and dishonest reasons and yet which it expects the Parliament to pass unaltered for the most crass and defensive political reasons. It is absurd that the Parliament is being asked to pass legislation when the Government has acknowledged that changes must be made to it. The changes I have referred to which emerged from the Scrutiny of Bills Committee are only part of what I understand to be a host of changes which the Government promises to introduce later. But we do not know what these changes are to be. We are assured that they will meet the quite proper objections of so many members of the Australian community who are concerned about this Bill, but we do not know what these changes will be. We are being asked to trust Bob Hawke, the Prime Minister, and to trust the responsible Minister in this place. I must say that I would feel most reluctant to do so, not only on this matter but on any matter, certainly on the track record of the Prime Minister. Should we apply the same trust to the Prime Minister on this matter as we placed in him when he said there would be no capital gains tax and no early election or on any of the host of other issues on which he has shown himself to be unworthy of any trust whatsoever? Here we have a man with a reputation second to none for breaking his word, for deliberately deceiving the Australian people before elections, a man who has set out to mislead, to deceive and to promise when he has had no intention of fulfilling his promises. Here we have in this legislation promises from the Prime Minister and the Minister in this place that appropriate changes will be made, provided we pass the Bill unaltered. Let us recognise this: anyone who rests his confidence in the Prime Minister fulfilling that obligation if this Bill is passed is flying in the face of bitter experience over the last four or so years of the Prime Minister's untrustworthiness in the matter of doing what he says he will do. Let us look to the areas we know the Government will have to change because it has said, if we can believe it of course, that it will make some changes. They emerge from the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Let us see how significant they are and consider whether we should trust the Government to do, at least in these areas, what it must do because it knows that the Bill is deficient. The changes relate basically to three matters. The first is whether this Parliament has a proper capacity to disallow regulations made under the legislation. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee, a bipartisan committee, quite clearly said not only last April when we discussed this but in the previous November, when the Opposition was strongly opposed to this legislation, that there should be greater power to examine regulations for the purpose of potential disallowance. The Committee drew to the attention of the Senate clause 12 (15) and stated: . . . it might be considered to subject the exercise of legislative power insufficiently to parliamentary scrutiny. The important thing about this is that the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), who was then the Minister in charge of the legislation, admitted that that was so, and wrote to the Committee saying that he appreciated: the committee's concern in this matter. He went on: Although the provision was devised as a method for the Minister to exempt a person, included in a class of persons specified in the notice, from one or more of the requirements in clause 12, in the event that it appears unreasonable for the person to have to comply with the requirements, I agree that there should be Parliamentary scrutiny of such notices and that they should be subject to tabling and disallowance provisions. There is an admission from the Minister that there was a need to correct the legislation. He said first of all, `Yes, I accept that it has to be fixed up, but we will do so in a subsequent Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill'. In other words he said, `Yes, it is wrong but pass it the way it is and we will fix it up later'. As I said, with the Prime Minister's incredible record for breaking promises, who would trust any government under him to proceed as undertaken? But that is not all. The legislation is clearly deficient in other areas, such as the question of requiring people to be at a place to perform various functions at a reasonable time. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee pointed out that there was no requirement for people to be at a place at a reasonable time. The Committee made the point that by failing to contain an appropriate stipulation these clauses may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. The Minister replied: . . . I appreciate the viewpoint expressed by the Committee that the provisions specified should include a proviso that the times and places referred to in notices should be reasonable-and I undertake that this test of reasonableness will be made explicit on the face of the legislation. In other words, that was not there, but it needs to be there. This Government is saying, `Yes, it needs to be there but we will not in fact amend this legislation to include it because we have our own agenda. We just ask you to trust us. After you have passed it in this inappropriate, imperfect and flawed way, do not worry; we will fix it up'. I have heard lots of mirth from the other side of this chamber when suggestions of `Don't you worry about that' have been made as a way of political life. I have heard jeers from the other side when that sort of approach has been adopted from the north. Yet here we have the Prime Minister of this country introducing and supporting some of the most serious, significant legislation that will affect the way of life of those in this nation on a `don't you worry about that' basis. How incredible it is that this Parliament is being asked to pass flawed legislation on grounds such as this when the Minister has admitted that the legislation needs amending. It is cynical, disgraceful and intolerable that this legislation should come back to us yet again in a form that the Government has acknowledged and admitted is flawed. Another flaw in the legislation, admitted by the Minister, relates to the power of delegation. One would think that in such a sensitive matter, in an area where offences carry severe penalties, the capacity to delegate powers would be strictly and properly limited. Not on your life! As the Scrutiny of Bills Committee pointed out, sub-clause 186 (1) `might be considered to make rights, liberties and/or obligations unduly dependent upon insufficiently defined administrative powers'. The situation was that any person could be on the receiving end of delegated powers under this provision of the legislation. It is not limited to staff. According to the proposed law itself, it could be anyone. It is clearly very sloppy drafting. If the intention is that it should be limited to staff, that is not what the Bill says. It says that power may be delegated to a person. The Minister responded as follows: I am willing to undertake that the legislation should be amended so that the intention to restrict the scope of the delegation in this way appears on the face of the legislation. The Government has promised to fix up three clear errors but it has not done so. It has come back to us with flawed legislation. As I said, it is intolerable that it should do so. The mechanical mistakes and flaws in this Bill which this Government is trying to ram through this House are evident. Let us have a look at more important things than the mechanical errors, the flaws in the legislation. Let us ask what the legislation itself really is all about. Let us see why this Government is progressing in this way with this ridiculous, oppressive, unnecessary, dishonourable and flawed piece of legislation, particularly when we recognise that the bulk of members of parliament-that is members of the House of Representatives and the Senate-and the bulk of Australians all reject it. Let us just assume that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was talking honestly-and I recognise that that is a great assumption to make-when he said that the election was a referendum on this matter. In fact, I heard him say during a radio interview on 2GB, when rejecting the concept that there should be a referendum on the Australia Card, that the election we had was better than a referendum. He said that it was the issue on which the election was fought and that the people determined that by returning a Labor Government. I do not know what kind of integrity is involved that enables a man to look at an election result and happily say that, even though 720,000 more Australians voted for parties that were clearly and publicly opposed to this legislation than voted for his party, which was the only party in favour of it, he has received a mandate. What kind of integrity is it that enables a man to say that when almost three-quarters of a million more Australians voted for the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia and the Australian Democrats, all of which publicly and overtly stated their objection to this legislation? More than three-quarters of a million people voted for those parties than voted for the Australian Labor Party, the only party which supported the Australia Card legislation. So, on Mr Hawke's criteria, his proposal-the Australia Card legislation, the ID card, the unAustralian card-was massively defeated, if the election were a referendum. In fact, few issues which have been the subject of referendum have been so thoroughly rejected in every State as was this issue. It was defeated by three-quarters of a million Australians. I do not remember the last time a referendum issue was rejected quite as effectively. Mr Hawke has gone through the charade of pretending that he has a mandate because he has been re-elected. However, in many instances Labor seats were won as a result of preferences which clearly did not involve a first preference in favour of the ID card. Yet, this is the criteria which has been used by Mr Hawke. For example, the Australian Democrats first preferences would clearly have been against the ID card. As I said, 721,000 more Australians voted against the ID card, on Mr Hawke's own criteria, than voted for it. Having acknowledged that most Australians oppose the ID card on Mr Hawke's criteria, let us have a look at the Parliament itself. The only way that this tainted, flawed bit of legislation that has been dishonestly presented here as the will of the people can become law is for both Houses of the Parliament to sit and pass it at a joint sitting. Mr Hawke tells us that the majority of parliamentarians will vote for and pass this dishonest and dishonourable legislation. But let us have a look at what the real desires of the majority of Federal parliamentarians are. We know that the Australian Democrats, who vote of their own free will--(Quorum formed) Mr Acting Deputy President, now at last we have members of the Labor Party in this chamber. There were none here in the chamber when the quorum was called. It is a disgrace that this should happen when we are considering such a vitally important piece of legislation. Senator Burns —What about your own mob? How many of yours? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —We had infinitely more of our members in here than members of the honourable senator's Party. There were no Labor senators. It is totally dishonest and disreputable of the honourable senator to try to make that kind of point. Not one member of the Labor Party was in the chamber when the quorum was called. Let me get back to this vitally important issue, an issue which does not worry the Labor Party whose members do not even attend the debate. However, this is a vital issue. As I was saying, in the Joint Sitting the Australian Democrats will have the capacity to vote as their conscience dictates. They will all be voting against the ID card. Liberal Party members have the capacity to vote as their conscience dictates. They will all be voting against the ID card. National Party members have the capacity to vote as their conscience dictates and they will be voting against the ID card. Labor Party members do not have the capacity-most of them do not have the intellect either-to vote in this matter as their conscience dictates. I say to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that there are 25 of them who, given the opportunity to vote as their conscience dictates, would in fact defeat this legislation in a joint sitting. They do not have the guts to do so. This legislation will be passed even though the majority of the parliamentarians in this place and in the Federal Parliament of this nation oppose the ID card. However, 25 members of the Labor Party will vote, not according to the dictates of their conscience but according to the dictates of their Prime Minister and their Caucus. Their consciences will be conveniently absent on the day of the Joint Sitting. It is a disgrace that this vital legislation will be forced through as a result of Caucus discipline. We all saw what happened to one Labor senator who opposed the ID card. Senator Georges is no longer with us. Senator Burns —He resigned. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Exactly. He resigned. I am glad the honourable senator interjected. He resigned. He had no other course as an honourable man. Here we have a situation where 25 members who sit opposite will be voting for something which in their consciences they totally reject. They will be putting into law affecting the nation, affecting our way of life, something they abhor. It is such a big issue with some of them that so far they have been unable to accept the discipline of Caucus in saying what they think about it. It is interesting to see what some Labor members think about this. They will not of course translate their thoughts and public statements into action because they do not have the guts to stand up for a basic principle which affects the way this nation will be run. I quote: Nothing can be more un-Australian than the need to prove one's identity on the call of an official, be it a policeman or a bureaucrat. That was not said by someone on our side. That was said by a Labor member of parliament, Mr Lewis Kent. Where was he when this legislation was passed yet again through the House of Representatives? He voted for it-a man who was as strongly opposed to it as this man was, according to the report of the Joint Select Committee, page 161. Another interesting comment described this legislation as: . . . a simplistic response to a range of difficult problems, a response that won't work. Polls showing most Australians favoured the introduction of the ID Card were based on loaded questions. Who was that? It was said by Senator Bolkus. How will he vote on this issue? He will vote against his conscience, against decency. He will vote with his Labor Party colleagues because he is forced to do so. He has no option if he wants to remain a member of parliament. We also know that Mr Saunderson attacked in public this dishonourable and dishonest bit of legislation. I shall quote a little more of what Mr Kent said: That it is called an Australia Card is an exercise in cynicism itself. Nothing can be more un-Australian than the need to prove one's identity on the call of an official, be it a policeman or a bureaucrat. It would be much more appropriate for the proposed card to be called a Hitler card or Stalin card, as the whole exercise smacks of authoritarianism. He went on: . . . by the use of identity cards our traditional liberties and our way of life which respects the privacy of the individual will be jeopardised. They are Labor members of parliament and they will vote for it. This is the hypocrisy of this Government, the dishonesty in once again bringing us flawed legislation. While we are on hypocrisy and dishonesty, let us look at the Press Gallery. Let us see what the media of Australia did in response to this issue in November of last year and April this year. Let us see what sort of simple, straightforward, uncomplicated reporting of this issue went on in November last year when we were going to the barricades over this issue, when the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Australian Democrats were risking our political futures on this issue. What a risk it was. Because of our determination, because this was a matter of principle, our stand enabled Mr Hawke to have an untimely and improper election in which he once again broke one of his many promises. We depend on Mr Hawke's integrity to correct the flaws in this legislation-that integrity which was shown to be non-existent once again on this issue. What were the media of Australia doing when we were going to the barricades? They did not even report the fact at the time that we in the Scrutiny of Bills Committee had got an admission from the Minister that the Bill was flawed and would have to be corrected. After I made a speech in this place, I tried to interest the Press Gallery, the people who are in charge of communicating to Australia what happens in this place, in the fact that the Minister admitted in a letter to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee that the Bill was flawed and would be corrected. One can imagine the sort of response that got. I ask any honourable senator to find any reports of that in the media. Instead, we got non-stop criticism, attacks on the Opposition from the media on daring to oppose this legislation. We were called opportunists. How on earth could we be opportunist doing something which clearly was unpopular, according to the polls at the time, and which exposed us to massive risk rather than benefit? The only benefit we got from opposing this legislation was the benefit of knowing that we had integrity; whereas the Labor Party was obliged to vote dishonourably for a dishonest and flawed piece of legislation which has no right to be brought back to this place-no right in terms of mandate, because there is no mandate, and no right in terms of its own integrity because the Bill is flawed. Newspapers such as the Australian were calling opposition to the Australia Card ill-advised `as there seems to be few defensible grounds for such opposition.' That was written only in June of 1986. Yet the Australian wrote an editorial just the other day attacking the Liberal Party for not dealing more vehemently with the matter. We had gone to the barricades but we were attacked as if somehow we had not done enough to oppose the ID card, having been criticised by the very same media for having opposed it, having gone to the barricades and having risked our political futures. The media have played a dishonourable role. They did not provide any kinds of accurate, reasonable, reasoned or adequate reports of the nature of the debates that took place in this place or in the other House over the vital periods of November last year and April this year when it was clearly an issue of major significance. The media even claimed that we were dishonourable or incompetent or wrong in opposing it. Now their tune has changed. The majority of Australians, now that they know the facts at last, know that this is lousy legislation from a lousy government which has no mandate for this legislation, which should and must be rejected by members of parliament if they are allowed to vote according to their consciences. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Debate (on motion by Senator Jones) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.28) —I wish to raise the matter of the future of the Montessori pre-school at Yarralumla in the Australian Capital Territory. To put the matter in context, I need to point out to honourable senators that this program is run by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority and started off in 1982 as what I regarded as an imaginative program within the Authority which indicated that the Authority was doing what it could to diversify the educational opportunities offered in the system in the Australian Capital Territory. I shall not take the time of the Senate this evening to go through all the events which have occurred. There were problems last year about the school continuing; there are problems this year about its continuing next year. Briefly, the Montessori program works on the basis that it has within it children aged from three to five years. I shall not develop the philosophy of the Montessori program now, but ask the Senate to accept that that is its basis. The Schools Authority has a policy of providing a full year of pre-school education for all four-year-old children in the 12 months prior to their starting school and going into kindergarten. The Authority has said that there cannot be three-year-old children in the pre-school program. It is not suggested by any of the parents that they should get favoured treatment or government funding for three-year-olds in a different manner from what occurs everywhere else. They want to provide for the three-year-old program so that it can be a full Montessori program and can proceed as it has done. But the Schools Authority has said that the parents cannot have three-year-olds in the program, they cannot pay for them themselves and they cannot provide the school teacher. We are now faced with the situation that the school may have to close. In a letter published recently in the Canberra Times, the Senior Director, Programs, of the ACT Schools Authority said a number of things, including: The authority has no legal mandate enabling it to accept donations from parents to employ staff, nor is it possible under the ordinance for the parents to employ staff to work in schools. Since then we have had this year's Budget and in that we find that the Schools Authority itself is imposing a fee for children who attend pre-school-the sum of $6 a week. I find it hard indeed to comprehend how the Government can maintain a policy whereby four-year-olds will pay a fee but three-year-olds may not attend pre-school and pay a fee even though, of course, it would be a higher fee than $6 a week. If we are charging for pre-schools what is the difference between the amount we may charge for four-year-olds and the amount we may charge for three-year-olds? In a sense the argument goes much deeper. Within the school system in the ACT we have a number of ways in which parents can participate. We have the school boards. We have other programs and I wonder whether these are being placed at risk. For example, we have a ballet program at the Ginninderra High School. Students attend this program and the Betsy Sawyer ballet program at the same time. It is a combined program which also exists in other parts of the world to enable ballet students to get the best opportunity for their ballet and their schooling. The students pay for the Betsy Sawyer ballet program which is not precisely within the school program but which operates with it. It is very little different from what is proposed for the Montessori program to enable the three-year-olds to attend the Yarralumla School. Are we to conclude that the ballet program at Ginninderra will be next to come under attack? Mr President, you would know that we have an imaginative program in the ACT with a French-Australian pre-school and a French program at the Telopea Park School. Teachers are provided by the French Government. What is the difference between providing teachers other than through the budget of the Schools Authority in that manner and the parents at the Montessori pre-school providing teachers to have three-year-olds included in the program? Those parents were not even suggesting that they went as far as charging fees for the three-year-olds. They were planning to run it as a `parent program' whereby the parents would contribute the cost, but we now have the example of all four-year-olds having to pay a fee to attend pre-school in the ACT from next year. The Government has got itself into a corner. It must resolve the situation and allow the parents at Yarra- lumla Montessori to contribute the cost of having teachers for the three-year-olds. The Government must make this decision soon and see that it is put into effect so that there is no further disruption to the program. The interesting conclusion to the letter that I referred to from the Director of Programs is as follows: Furthermore- this is in addition to it being impossible to employ staff or charge fees- such precedents would be philosophically unjustifiable, as they would establish a basis for an inequitable system of education provision for public schools in the ACT. This flies in the face of the stated policy of a diversified education system. It flies in the face of what the Government has now done and, I think the attitude threatens the two programs to which I have referred. It seems to me that it is time the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) took a close look at what is happening and made a decision which determines the future of this pre-school in a way that is reasonable, sensible and will give those children whose parents wish them to take part in it, an opportunity to do so. I hope that the Minister will look at it soon and come to a decision which now fits in with this new policy of charging fees to attend pre-schools. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(10.35) —I will bring Senator Reid's remarks to the attention of Senator Richardson in the hope that he will pass them on to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown). I have no direct knowledge of these matters. Once again it is a reminder to the Senate that had not the butcher of self-government in this chamber, Senator Vigor, assassinated local government, we would not have had to deal with these problems; they could have been dealt with elsewhere. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.35 p.m.